Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-11T01:51:47Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

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

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

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

==Submissions ==

----

Name: Erika L Rich

Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board

Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

----

Final Projects

2015-05-11T01:51:23Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

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

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

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

==Submissions ==

Name: Erika L Rich
Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board
Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_FINAL_PAPER.docx]]
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

File:LSTU E120 Erika Rich FINAL PAPER.docx

2015-05-11T01:49:17Z

ErikaLRich: Final Paper on the Warrior Forum

Final Paper on the Warrior Forum

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-28T16:08:04Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due before class on April 28th.'''

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

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

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

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

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

----

'''Name:''' Erika L Rich

'''Title:''' "Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board"

'''Link:''' [[Media:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_4.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

----

'''Name:''' MattK

'''Title:''' "Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction."

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----
'''Name:''' Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

'''Title:''' Assignment 4: Draft- Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_4.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
----
'''Name:''' HRomero and ChellyByrne

'''Title:''' "Balancing Privacy for Victims of Sexual Crimes With Opportunity for Support in Online Forum AfterSilence.org"

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Assignment4.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': JosefinS

'''Project title''': A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_4.pdf_Klar.pdf

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (EDT)
----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-28T16:07:35Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due before class on April 28th.'''

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

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

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

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

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

----

'''Name:''' Erika L Rich

'''Title:''' "Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board"

'''Link:''' [[Media:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_4.docx]]

````

----

'''Name:''' MattK

'''Title:''' "Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction."

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----
'''Name:''' Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

'''Title:''' Assignment 4: Draft- Analyzing the Regulatory Constraints and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep through a Representative Survey of the Nintendo Let’s Play Community

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_4.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
----
'''Name:''' HRomero and ChellyByrne

'''Title:''' "Balancing Privacy for Victims of Sexual Crimes With Opportunity for Support in Online Forum AfterSilence.org"

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:HRomero_ChellyByrne_Assignment4.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (EDT)
----

'''Name''': JosefinS

'''Project title''': A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_4.pdf_Klar.pdf

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (EDT)
----

File:LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 4.docx

2015-04-28T16:06:13Z

ErikaLRich: Rough Draft of Final Paper

Rough Draft of Final Paper

Peer Production

2015-04-21T16:20:12Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 21'''

Although the point may seem obvious now, one of the Internet’s most powerful attributes is how it can facilitate the social production of information or computing. From the earliest experiments with dividing memory-intensive tasks amongst different computers, to modern efforts to crowdsource solutions to challenging or urgent problems, peer production is a major benefit from our networked world. And it raises some interesting questions of both Internet control and production theory: How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? Are there types of things that should not be produced by the crowd? What are the risks to producers and society inherent to peer production?

Joining us this week is Berkman Fellow [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sklein SJ Klein].

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is now due on April 28th, but they will be accepted if turned in today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

== Readings ==

; Development from the edges

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation''] (Chapter 1, focus on pages 1-3 and 13-15, skim rest)

; Development as a crowd

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/12/hergueux Jerome Hergeaux, Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy: Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia] (video, watch from beginning to 47:50)

* [http://video.mit.edu/watch/news-information-and-the-wealth-of-networks-9187/ Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (video, watch from 8:32 to 26:07)

:* if you’re not familiar, you may want to spend a little time looking at Wikipedia’s entry on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti@home Seti@home].

* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf John Tang et al, Reflecting on the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge (''Communications of the ACM'')]

; Crowd intelligence

* [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html James Surowiecki, ''The Wisdom of Crowds''] (read excerpt)

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/ Ethan Zuckerman, Review of Cass Sunstein’s “Infotopia”]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/can-the-internet-bring-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-selfishness/246552/ Can the Internet Bring the Beginning of the End of Selfishness?]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU Jonathan Zittrain, Minds for Sale] (video, watch all)

* [http://rcmap.hatnote.com/#en Hatnote, Real Time Wikipedia Changes Map]

* [http://time.com/3040483/congress-wikipedia/ Congress Gets Banned From Editing Wikipedia]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

I usually prefer to attend class via the live streaming session because our conversations are brilliant and I learn a lot more, and can contribute much better in that interactive situation. The class has been brilliant.

'''That said, I've just had a work emergency come up which means I may not make the live portion.'''

I wanted to post a memory about SETI@Home... I remember joining in 1999 and had the app running on my computer, 24/7, for YEARS! I always thought it was the coolest collaborative effort utilizing desktops across the globe. I didn't care whether it found anything or not, I was always mesmerized by the data scrolling across the screen. Yes, it didn't take much to bedazzle me back then... :)

I started traveling more, and switched from a desktop to a laptop somewhere around 2002-2003 and that ended my SETI installation. I never got around to installing it again.

Also.

Speaking about innovation and technology, I think one of the biggest things to have hit the globe is 3D printing. While still a bit expensive, it still allows people to get into markets and innovate products and inventions almost immediately upon perception rather than struggling with finding someone to build their prototype, let alone finance it.

Eric Von Hippel wrote about an example of how users want to modify their own products, which was spot on. I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank where an inventor had built an electrical connector and had even used 3D modeling to produce a prototype if I recall correctly. I thought that was just about the coolest thing ever. How far technology has come that anyone, anywhere, can create products and services from nothing but their imagination and problem solving.

Another inventor created an auxilary handle for a snow shovel, again, using 3D technology to prototype it. This one I have a link for: http://blog.nextfab.com/join-the-shovelution-from-a-rapid-prototype-to-shark

We have to love the era we are in right now.

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Hey all, I'm screening the NYT at work this week and came across two articles that I thought would be relevant to share here:

Fighting homelessness with smartphones (a case for why technology has become a basic need):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/upshot/fighting-homelessness-one-smartphone-at-a-time.html?abt=0002&abg=1

Europe formally challenges Google's dominance in web searches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/international/european-union-google-antitrust-case.html

Enjoy!

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]])

-----------

'''Thumbs up for Zittrain Video'''

I usually post quite late, just before class, in case I think of something profound. Today I am posting early, firstly because experience has taught me profundity is unlikely in the hours remaining, and secondly to leave enough time that you might follow my thumbs-up for the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU/ Jonathan Zittrain Minds for Sale Video] in the Optional Readings section of today’s assignment page. It is a little over 90 minutes, but I wish it were longer. It illuminates many of the questions I wrote in the margins of my notes on the other readings.

I was particularly interested in the discussion about the unusual world we are creating for ourselves as we begin to employ diverse human resources to perform tiny increments of work in return for pennies, points in a game, or nothing at all. Zittrain touches on the many imaginative ways that peer production, including the gamification of peer production, is employed. He asks whether our children will spend their leisure time making a few more dollars on their phones, rather than being a part of real/live activities. It is a fascinating discussion, very well presented.

I highly recommend venturing into this optional reading activity even if you don’t usually go there. If this subject area is at all interesting to you, Zittrain’s video is worthwhile.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
----

While reading Eric Von Hippel’s Democratizing Innovation, particularly the passage about windsurfing, I was reminded of the first in-depth article I read about Twitter. I started my own account in January of 2009, but I rarely used it until that summer when I read an in-depth article about it in Time magazine. The article described how Twitter users – not the software team – developed the concept of the hashtag, as well as trending topics. Since that time, these innovations have more or less come to define Twitter as we know it. I specifically remember a quote likening Twitter’s use innovation to a group of people buying a toaster and transforming it into a microwave. This article was directly responsible for my increased usage of Twitter. At a time when Facebook was making sweeping changes to its platform, often to the dismay of its users, the idea of Twitter’s user-based innovation felt refreshing, democratic, and empowering.

What I was feeling is similar to what Yochai Benkler described about Wikipedia: that it has given us "a way of looking at the world around us and seeing the possibility of effective human cooperation, on really complex, large projects, without relying on either market or government processes” (of course, Twitter itself relies on the market, but its users do not necessarily). I was also struck by James Surowiecki’s arguments for the wisdom of crowds. I often fall into a trap of thinking that large groups succumb to the lowest common denominator or develop a mob mentality. However, the way Twitter users make use of hashtags should constantly be reminding me of the opposite. Consistently over the past several years, users have redefined media narratives that have traditionally excluded certain voices. For example, the #yesallwomen and #blacklivesmatter hashtags have given voices to women and African Americans and have launched conversations around gender and race in society in productive ways. It seems like I constantly hear about how the Internet makes us secluded, narcissistic, and vapid, so it was encouraging to read about the ways large numbers of users contribute to the public good through peer production.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T21:32:28Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 14'''

Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?

Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in 'Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies' ] (case study on p. 214-237)

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]

* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]

* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

-------------

Paul Rosenzweig posted an interesting article on lawfareblog.com about the transistion.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/04/on-the-issue-of-jurisdiction-over-icann/

He recently joined a group that has been started to "define the accountability mechanisms that need to be adopted by ICANN to safeguard it from capture by governments or the bureaucracy of ICANN itself."

Of note in the article:
"Regarding personal jurisdiction over ICANN, it seems highly likely (given the International Shoe doctrine) that ICANN will remain subject to the personal jurisdiction of US courts so long as it does significant business in the United States. And, of course, it seems undeniable that ICANN will continue to do business in America even if it is incorporated in another country – much as BMW does business here in the US and is subject to American in personam jurisdiction. Indeed, if one were to push on the ambiguity in the Affirmation and reincorporate ICANN elsewhere but retain its headquarters in the US the jurisdiction of US courts over ICANN would be clear."

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

-------------

Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he's ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

-------------

Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California state law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet - the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
------------

I actually found this week´s reading quite difficult to understand, so I´m looking forward to class. It was a lot of technical talk that was hard to grasp, for example exactly what the possible solutions are, even though I understood parts of it.

What I perceived was that the U.S. has power over ICANN (until this fall) and that it is problematic, since the Internet should be independent from any specific government.

I also begun to reflect about lobbyists and their power over the Internet. We´ve seen how lobbying earlier have been successful in other issues about the Internet, such as net neutrality. I wonder how powerful lobbyists are when it comes to these matters? The following quote about the meeting in Brazil is interesting since it also is about giving/not giving power to different groups: ”Other efforts were also made to treat contributions from a diverse range of stakeholders equitably. There were four microphones, labeled with construction paper and color-coded for governments, corporations, academics, and advocacy groups”.

That sounds fair, since the labeling of the microphones makes it difficult to hide where your interest are. However, there is always someone setting the agenda for the meeting and deciding who is welcome and not (in this case the smaller Executive Multistakeholder Committee). That someone (a person or a group, in this case a group) has consequently a lot of power. There are always informal power structures at meetings, which affect who is listened to. We sometimes think about the Internet as a free space, independent from governments and the market and without anyone who really governs it. In reality, that is not the case. The Internet is in many ways affected by powerful groups, both formally and informally.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

Today’s readings and especially the debate between Jonathan Zittrain and Gordon Crovitz, were very useful in order to answer myself what part of Internet is actually controlled and what impact this control has over the Internet final users.

I also asked myself the same question, many people are asking, should it continue the same way and in what direction things need to be changed and see diferent points of view on this. Gordon Crovittz says that he sees more potential problems than positive results if US government gives up the control over ICANN in order to have multi governments control but the reality is that many other countries wants to have their part in it. A very nice explanation of the actual influence of the US government has been given by Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis which answers the question why IANA is actually subject to U.S. jurisdiction and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN.

Events like the NETmundial are a sign that many governments have already realized the importance and power of the Internet governance and feel they have been “left behind”. This is the reason international conferences and initiatives like NETmundial, have been organized. But we are still talking about the influence over ICANN, meaning over he domain names, in certain way. The position Jonathan Zittrain is defending, saying that we should not forget domain names do not equal Internet and actually ICANN is not the one who is deciding what is going to happen in the Internet generally, should be taken into account. The fact that this organization is having authority over the domain names but not over the content or the application of the net neutrality, should not be neglected. I agree that the conditions under which mass surveillance may be permitted, as well as the role of the search engines, which stayed out of the final text of the NETmundial’s final document, seems to be far more crucial than the management and the control over the domain names.
In order to establish a new order in the Internet governance many players and interests will be mixed up. The fact that the requirement for the Internet search companies to establish local data centers, was not included in the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet as originally envisioned, due to effective lobbying by Internet companies, shows us that a many long and difficult battles are going to be led.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

-----

Indeed, from what others on the forum are posting, this was a short reading list but not one to speed through for non-techies… Zittrain’s article on New Republic discussing ICANN put it so well in summing up the rudderless discussion about the great “unowned technology” that is the Internet: it’s confusing. There’s “[n]othing to see here, but Internet governance matters, so go on and get involved.” But for the less optimistic advocates of human nature, for a voice to say there’s nothing to see instantly means something is hiding – and in this case, somewhere in the great and tangled mass that is domain names, ISPs, owned and unowned technologies, and a baffling array of systems that the layman grows cross-eyed trying to understand.

Ultimately, given a choice, this latest move to put everything in the hands of ICANN doesn’t to my layman’s eyes, seem outright egregious… given the two evils I’d rather have a corporation, motivated by success and money, to maintain these kinds of controls instead of the State, operating in bureaucratic stasis and power-intrigues. I found Zittrain’s article, if not a little uncomfortably flippant about potential threats that the March 14 handover has brought about, overall very illuminating. “The Internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated.” Only this hallucination is confusingly real. And hallucinations are only “owned” by the eyes of the beholder – in turn, perhaps this principle applies to these policy “decisions” made by various states over a (mostly) stateless entity.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

----

I’m going to start off by giving some of my personal thoughts on the issue of “who should control the internet”. I believe this fundamental issue could be traced to the regime we have, the basic “rights” that we instilled into our population. (assuming its all about US) Lets start off by looking at who controls the flow of information. Without the internet, it appears to me that information is mostly controlled by the government. I mean, we do see the general public transferring information around, but they are restricted by their geographical location. Even with the creation of telegrams and telephones, the reliability of long distance information transfer was still minimal, and this transfer of information was pricy, as well as the target audience would likely be the recipient that the caller knows.

The next form of communication prior to the internet was news agencies. They would spread the information of recent happenings in the form of newspapers. It is a more efficient means of transferring information, but that too is dependent on the source they have. For example, a news agency’s news is only as accurate as the information they get, and where they get it. If their source does not release any information, then they get nothing. These sources would consider twice before releasing sensitive material, as the information releasing market isn’t very efficient, it would be easier to trace who did it; thus it’s easier for the government to pinpoint the traitor (if necessary).

So if you ask me who controls information prior to the internet? I believe it is the government. Or at least a big chunk of it would be controlled by the government. The government dictates laws and regulations on news corporations. The limitations of information transfer due to technology meant that the small players (individual citizens) were taken out of the equation to have the “power” to control data flow. The real “meat” of the information we “hope” to be transparent was under the control of the government, and the government has their control over what gets released. If a traitor plans to release data, I believe the efficiency of it would be very low, and it would be easy to trace this individual, thus preventing potential traitors.

We need not look too far away. Edward Snowden was a classic example of something that would only happen with the invention of the internet. Without the internet, he would need to think twice before releasing information. Furthermore, the news agency that he would have leaked it to, would also think twice before releasing it. So it makes it more difficult to do this. With the internet, it was simply a click of the button, and everyone would be public.

I like the idea of NetMundial Initiative. (Ref 1) The internet has boomed and developed so quickly that regulations could not go at the same pace. There is no universal governing of the internet. This sort of rings a bell about currencies. That too has no world central bank or something, and thus we always see these violent and volatile movements in the forex market. I believe that the internet is similar as that. It needs some sort of universal regulation or standard to unify things. Though ofcourse it does not always satisfy all parties during the meeting.

Even though NetMundial was a good thing to do, it was going to be hard to make all parties agree with each other’s philosophies. The issue on net neutrality was not addressed either. It went from supporting it, to saying it requires more discussion. (Ref 3) I believe net neutrality will always be a tricky one. It’s hard to agree on this entirely. It also depends deeply on the regime of that country and their core fundamental beliefs. For example, America has very different beliefs than China does. America is a democracy after all with constitutional beliefs for freedom of speech. China is a one party country that may consider too much freedom of speech to be dangerous; not only to the party’s strength, but other reasons too.

The other interesting point I’d like to point out is the issue on surveillance. There is not real “limit” to the surveillance that governments can use. I believe this too also has aligned interests from all governments. All governments have the incentive to have as much information as possible. This would make it easy to agree with one another. The phrase “necessary and proportionate” is too broad and is subject to interpretation; thus a limit is not identified. (Ref 3)

I particularly like the Root zone management where it “align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance”. I’m a big believer that when people have aligned interests, things get done much more efficiently. Such as to win a game, all players want to help each other achieve this goal. (ref 2)

“A better method would be to put IANA functions in the hands of actors with a strong self-interest in ensuring timely service, security and accuracy.” (ref 2)

This explains how it could be done to align the interests. I agree with it too. (ref 2)

So after much consideration, I do believe that government surveillance, monitoring, and censorship will be inevitable. There is no way around it. They will do it for sure. As long as we have government, they’d assume they know what’s best for us, and would like to keep tabs on our activities. We may get more transparency due to the freedom to write and share what we like and to receive data quickly from multiple sources, but at the end of the day, the government will monitor (as much as possible) on the types of data that is being shared. Though an internet with no government is rather scary as well. It will be open to hackers, and similar to capitalism; it is susceptible to monopoly. The internet could also be susceptible to hackers dominating the system and controlling data flow to only distribute what they want it to be. Of course all these scenarios are a little extreme; but if we use the assumption of capitalism and monopolies, it does make sense.

References:

Ref 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative

Ref 2 - http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

Ref 3 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 14:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

This week offered a surprising glimpse into the complexities and technicalities of governing the Internet. While I considered myself a knowledgeable user of the Internet, I learned enough in this week’s reading to realize how little I know about its workings.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case…" (Ref 1, 31)

It was particularly fitting that our readings begin with the study of NETmudial (Ref 2, 217-237), which cracks open the metaphorical watchcase, above, to reveal the ingenious logistics of this meeting. I have participated in many formal efforts to create and revise codes and standards. My experience gives me a reference point from which to view how this diverse group brought together the tools and facilities that were needed in such short time and with so little financial support. Frankly, other efforts I have seen are weak in comparison to the NETmundial organizing effort.

The strengths of NETmundial seem to me to flow in part from the fundamental purpose to form a global organization capable of governing a global network. If such a global organization is to be formed and operate, its success would depend on its ability to communicate effectively and productively on a global basis. By offering physical meeting places, virtual connections, remote hubs, live multi-language translation, and crowdsourced consensus-building resources, the NETmundial organizing committee established a strong foundation for global governance. This is foundation enough to prove that communications and logistics are not substantial barriers to innovative models of wide area governance, and that we may exit familiar boxes relieve at least some of the constraints they impose. I return to Einstein and Infield and their view of how human perception tends to change over time, even with respect to what we consider fixed and immutable:

"In the case of the planets moving around the sun it is found that the system of mechanics works splendidly. Nevertheless we can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well." (Ref 1, 31)

I think this week we learn that innovation in forms of governance is possible, and the values-based, collaborative, multistakeholder framework for NETmundial proves the hypothesis.

Works Cited

Reference 1 – Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold. “The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta.” Second Edition (1961). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge (Great Britain). Online Google Books. Accessed 14 April 2015.

Reference 2 – Gasser, Urs and Budish, Ryan and West, Sarah Myers. “Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies (January 14, 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-1.” Online http://ssrn.com/abstract=2549270. Accessed 11 April 2015.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

I completely concur with my classmates in the complexity of this week’s readings. I found myself having to do a significant amount of cross-research in order to grasp the background context.

The NETmudial preamble states “stakeholder representatives appointed to multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic and transparent processes.” More people from developing countries are connecting to the internet, as indicated by this The World Bank map: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2; therefore when reading the ‘NETmudial Multistakehold Statement’, I began to question the process of how multi-stakeholders from developing countries were engaged in the contribution process. In researching the NETmudial website, there was a transparent process that allowed participants to contribute through online submissions. There were 188 contributions coming from 49 countries with 45% of all the contributions coming from the US, UK Brazil, India and Switzerland. Here you can find a summary of the contributions to NETmudial’s content: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Content-Contribution-Summary_1703_final.pdf. What was particularly interesting were the NETmudial comments that were contributed by developing countries, which can be found here: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NETmundial-Comments.xlsx and here as formalized individual submissions: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs.

I would only begin to question the perspective of an ‘open process’. Due to time constraints, NETmudial were only able to take contributions in English. Additionally, they limited participation numbers but ensured that each country had at least one representative. This leaves me to question the validity of their inclusion based on their language barriers and selection of participants.

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----
Tough reading. The NetMundial project came about from a general consensus that existed amongst internet governance and internet policy deevelopers that the infrastructure and control of much of the internet protocols worldwide were in the hands of a few players. After the revelations of widespread NSA surveillance on U.S citizens and other countries, it was decided that some action was needed to level the playing field and allow other stakeholders to guide the development of world wide internet governance so that the power and access of information is not held amongst a few key players.

The NetMundial meeting in brazil in 2014 sought put down in writing some principles of equal access and control of the internet which most governments and influential players already agreed on, and it sought to lay down a plan of future rules and governance that were flexible enough and could adapt to emerging technologies.

Notable is the reluctance of major search engines to allow regional data centers in other countries, and their efforts to keep ICANN in the U.S. rather than under international control.
[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Internet Governance and Governments

2015-04-14T21:31:56Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 14'''

Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?

Leading the conversation today will be our own [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rbudish Ryan Budish].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270 The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in 'Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies' ] (case study on p. 214-237)

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Multistakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance NETmundial, Wikipedia]

* [http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf Explained: The IANA Transition]

* [http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyfpPJo2gnA Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf NETmundial Output Document and Principles]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

-------------

Paul Rosenzweig posted an interesting article on lawfareblog.com about the transistion.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/04/on-the-issue-of-jurisdiction-over-icann/

He recently joined a group that has been started to "define the accountability mechanisms that need to be adopted by ICANN to safeguard it from capture by governments or the bureaucracy of ICANN itself."

Of note in the article:
Regarding personal jurisdiction over ICANN, it seems highly likely (given the International Shoe doctrine) that ICANN will remain subject to the personal jurisdiction of US courts so long as it does significant business in the United States. And, of course, it seems undeniable that ICANN will continue to do business in America even if it is incorporated in another country – much as BMW does business here in the US and is subject to American in personam jurisdiction. Indeed, if one were to push on the ambiguity in the Affirmation and reincorporate ICANN elsewhere but retain its headquarters in the US the jurisdiction of US courts over ICANN would be clear.

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

-------------

Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he's ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

-------------

Conversation about who controls the Internet - mainly governments or corporations - in the United States is extremely challenging in its own right, but when the discussion extends globally, we have a real mess on our hands. Different countries have such a vast range of the concept of censorship, and therefor both policy and legislation differ dramatically on the global scale. The various mentions of China versus California state law in the Zittrain and Crovitz debate caught my attention because of my own experience with the country and the state of California. I first studied China during economics and business courses in my undergrad while living in California. At the time I became a huge proponent of privatization and of course corporate control (better, faster, cheaper! competition!). I decided to go to China when I graduated expecting to hate it after studying it, but I really enjoyed myself. Despite the phenomenal government, economic, and humanitarian issues in China… the country was in a much better position that I expected. And having since visited, I have made friends with a few girls who grew up in China. Despite the very obvious censorship that we are aware of and I saw myself - from television to newspapers to Internet - the people I met have a surprisingly accurate view of their government and the world. The Internet and digital communication are the main sources of up to date and uncolored information in countries whose government policies favor censorship. One of the points that really resonated with me in this video we watched was that American values are being spread through the Internet to countries that do not have them. The fact that ICANN can have a global reach and still follow California state law supports that. Now that ICANN has moved into international control, the debate against this organization pushing US imperialism will subside. I believe that we are moving in the right direction, with walls of censorship being taken down even in Russia, Iran, and India, specifically on the Internet. Ultimately, however, the two main problems going forward as I see them are that ICANN platforms presented by individual countries (outside of the United States) will reflect their government policy, which does not always reflect the best interest of their people and that whatever agreements are made within ICANN (such as Internet Bill of Rights) will be difficult to enforce, especially in sophisticated and wealthy authoritarian governments.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
------------

I actually found this week´s reading quite difficult to understand, so I´m looking forward to class. It was a lot of technical talk that was hard to grasp, for example exactly what the possible solutions are, even though I understood parts of it.

What I perceived was that the U.S. has power over ICANN (until this fall) and that it is problematic, since the Internet should be independent from any specific government.

I also begun to reflect about lobbyists and their power over the Internet. We´ve seen how lobbying earlier have been successful in other issues about the Internet, such as net neutrality. I wonder how powerful lobbyists are when it comes to these matters? The following quote about the meeting in Brazil is interesting since it also is about giving/not giving power to different groups: ”Other efforts were also made to treat contributions from a diverse range of stakeholders equitably. There were four microphones, labeled with construction paper and color-coded for governments, corporations, academics, and advocacy groups”.

That sounds fair, since the labeling of the microphones makes it difficult to hide where your interest are. However, there is always someone setting the agenda for the meeting and deciding who is welcome and not (in this case the smaller Executive Multistakeholder Committee). That someone (a person or a group, in this case a group) has consequently a lot of power. There are always informal power structures at meetings, which affect who is listened to. We sometimes think about the Internet as a free space, independent from governments and the market and without anyone who really governs it. In reality, that is not the case. The Internet is in many ways affected by powerful groups, both formally and informally.

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

Today’s readings and especially the debate between Jonathan Zittrain and Gordon Crovitz, were very useful in order to answer myself what part of Internet is actually controlled and what impact this control has over the Internet final users.

I also asked myself the same question, many people are asking, should it continue the same way and in what direction things need to be changed and see diferent points of view on this. Gordon Crovittz says that he sees more potential problems than positive results if US government gives up the control over ICANN in order to have multi governments control but the reality is that many other countries wants to have their part in it. A very nice explanation of the actual influence of the US government has been given by Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis which answers the question why IANA is actually subject to U.S. jurisdiction and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN.

Events like the NETmundial are a sign that many governments have already realized the importance and power of the Internet governance and feel they have been “left behind”. This is the reason international conferences and initiatives like NETmundial, have been organized. But we are still talking about the influence over ICANN, meaning over he domain names, in certain way. The position Jonathan Zittrain is defending, saying that we should not forget domain names do not equal Internet and actually ICANN is not the one who is deciding what is going to happen in the Internet generally, should be taken into account. The fact that this organization is having authority over the domain names but not over the content or the application of the net neutrality, should not be neglected. I agree that the conditions under which mass surveillance may be permitted, as well as the role of the search engines, which stayed out of the final text of the NETmundial’s final document, seems to be far more crucial than the management and the control over the domain names.
In order to establish a new order in the Internet governance many players and interests will be mixed up. The fact that the requirement for the Internet search companies to establish local data centers, was not included in the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet as originally envisioned, due to effective lobbying by Internet companies, shows us that a many long and difficult battles are going to be led.
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))

-----

Indeed, from what others on the forum are posting, this was a short reading list but not one to speed through for non-techies… Zittrain’s article on New Republic discussing ICANN put it so well in summing up the rudderless discussion about the great “unowned technology” that is the Internet: it’s confusing. There’s “[n]othing to see here, but Internet governance matters, so go on and get involved.” But for the less optimistic advocates of human nature, for a voice to say there’s nothing to see instantly means something is hiding – and in this case, somewhere in the great and tangled mass that is domain names, ISPs, owned and unowned technologies, and a baffling array of systems that the layman grows cross-eyed trying to understand.

Ultimately, given a choice, this latest move to put everything in the hands of ICANN doesn’t to my layman’s eyes, seem outright egregious… given the two evils I’d rather have a corporation, motivated by success and money, to maintain these kinds of controls instead of the State, operating in bureaucratic stasis and power-intrigues. I found Zittrain’s article, if not a little uncomfortably flippant about potential threats that the March 14 handover has brought about, overall very illuminating. “The Internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated.” Only this hallucination is confusingly real. And hallucinations are only “owned” by the eyes of the beholder – in turn, perhaps this principle applies to these policy “decisions” made by various states over a (mostly) stateless entity.

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

----

I’m going to start off by giving some of my personal thoughts on the issue of “who should control the internet”. I believe this fundamental issue could be traced to the regime we have, the basic “rights” that we instilled into our population. (assuming its all about US) Lets start off by looking at who controls the flow of information. Without the internet, it appears to me that information is mostly controlled by the government. I mean, we do see the general public transferring information around, but they are restricted by their geographical location. Even with the creation of telegrams and telephones, the reliability of long distance information transfer was still minimal, and this transfer of information was pricy, as well as the target audience would likely be the recipient that the caller knows.

The next form of communication prior to the internet was news agencies. They would spread the information of recent happenings in the form of newspapers. It is a more efficient means of transferring information, but that too is dependent on the source they have. For example, a news agency’s news is only as accurate as the information they get, and where they get it. If their source does not release any information, then they get nothing. These sources would consider twice before releasing sensitive material, as the information releasing market isn’t very efficient, it would be easier to trace who did it; thus it’s easier for the government to pinpoint the traitor (if necessary).

So if you ask me who controls information prior to the internet? I believe it is the government. Or at least a big chunk of it would be controlled by the government. The government dictates laws and regulations on news corporations. The limitations of information transfer due to technology meant that the small players (individual citizens) were taken out of the equation to have the “power” to control data flow. The real “meat” of the information we “hope” to be transparent was under the control of the government, and the government has their control over what gets released. If a traitor plans to release data, I believe the efficiency of it would be very low, and it would be easy to trace this individual, thus preventing potential traitors.

We need not look too far away. Edward Snowden was a classic example of something that would only happen with the invention of the internet. Without the internet, he would need to think twice before releasing information. Furthermore, the news agency that he would have leaked it to, would also think twice before releasing it. So it makes it more difficult to do this. With the internet, it was simply a click of the button, and everyone would be public.

I like the idea of NetMundial Initiative. (Ref 1) The internet has boomed and developed so quickly that regulations could not go at the same pace. There is no universal governing of the internet. This sort of rings a bell about currencies. That too has no world central bank or something, and thus we always see these violent and volatile movements in the forex market. I believe that the internet is similar as that. It needs some sort of universal regulation or standard to unify things. Though ofcourse it does not always satisfy all parties during the meeting.

Even though NetMundial was a good thing to do, it was going to be hard to make all parties agree with each other’s philosophies. The issue on net neutrality was not addressed either. It went from supporting it, to saying it requires more discussion. (Ref 3) I believe net neutrality will always be a tricky one. It’s hard to agree on this entirely. It also depends deeply on the regime of that country and their core fundamental beliefs. For example, America has very different beliefs than China does. America is a democracy after all with constitutional beliefs for freedom of speech. China is a one party country that may consider too much freedom of speech to be dangerous; not only to the party’s strength, but other reasons too.

The other interesting point I’d like to point out is the issue on surveillance. There is not real “limit” to the surveillance that governments can use. I believe this too also has aligned interests from all governments. All governments have the incentive to have as much information as possible. This would make it easy to agree with one another. The phrase “necessary and proportionate” is too broad and is subject to interpretation; thus a limit is not identified. (Ref 3)

I particularly like the Root zone management where it “align incentives to ensure the accuracy and security of root zone maintenance”. I’m a big believer that when people have aligned interests, things get done much more efficiently. Such as to win a game, all players want to help each other achieve this goal. (ref 2)

“A better method would be to put IANA functions in the hands of actors with a strong self-interest in ensuring timely service, security and accuracy.” (ref 2)

This explains how it could be done to align the interests. I agree with it too. (ref 2)

So after much consideration, I do believe that government surveillance, monitoring, and censorship will be inevitable. There is no way around it. They will do it for sure. As long as we have government, they’d assume they know what’s best for us, and would like to keep tabs on our activities. We may get more transparency due to the freedom to write and share what we like and to receive data quickly from multiple sources, but at the end of the day, the government will monitor (as much as possible) on the types of data that is being shared. Though an internet with no government is rather scary as well. It will be open to hackers, and similar to capitalism; it is susceptible to monopoly. The internet could also be susceptible to hackers dominating the system and controlling data flow to only distribute what they want it to be. Of course all these scenarios are a little extreme; but if we use the assumption of capitalism and monopolies, it does make sense.

References:

Ref 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative

Ref 2 - http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

Ref 3 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 14:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

This week offered a surprising glimpse into the complexities and technicalities of governing the Internet. While I considered myself a knowledgeable user of the Internet, I learned enough in this week’s reading to realize how little I know about its workings.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case…" (Ref 1, 31)

It was particularly fitting that our readings begin with the study of NETmudial (Ref 2, 217-237), which cracks open the metaphorical watchcase, above, to reveal the ingenious logistics of this meeting. I have participated in many formal efforts to create and revise codes and standards. My experience gives me a reference point from which to view how this diverse group brought together the tools and facilities that were needed in such short time and with so little financial support. Frankly, other efforts I have seen are weak in comparison to the NETmundial organizing effort.

The strengths of NETmundial seem to me to flow in part from the fundamental purpose to form a global organization capable of governing a global network. If such a global organization is to be formed and operate, its success would depend on its ability to communicate effectively and productively on a global basis. By offering physical meeting places, virtual connections, remote hubs, live multi-language translation, and crowdsourced consensus-building resources, the NETmundial organizing committee established a strong foundation for global governance. This is foundation enough to prove that communications and logistics are not substantial barriers to innovative models of wide area governance, and that we may exit familiar boxes relieve at least some of the constraints they impose. I return to Einstein and Infield and their view of how human perception tends to change over time, even with respect to what we consider fixed and immutable:

"In the case of the planets moving around the sun it is found that the system of mechanics works splendidly. Nevertheless we can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well." (Ref 1, 31)

I think this week we learn that innovation in forms of governance is possible, and the values-based, collaborative, multistakeholder framework for NETmundial proves the hypothesis.

Works Cited

Reference 1 – Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold. “The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta.” Second Edition (1961). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge (Great Britain). Online Google Books. Accessed 14 April 2015.

Reference 2 – Gasser, Urs and Budish, Ryan and West, Sarah Myers. “Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies (January 14, 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-1.” Online http://ssrn.com/abstract=2549270. Accessed 11 April 2015.

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----

I completely concur with my classmates in the complexity of this week’s readings. I found myself having to do a significant amount of cross-research in order to grasp the background context.

The NETmudial preamble states “stakeholder representatives appointed to multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic and transparent processes.” More people from developing countries are connecting to the internet, as indicated by this The World Bank map: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2; therefore when reading the ‘NETmudial Multistakehold Statement’, I began to question the process of how multi-stakeholders from developing countries were engaged in the contribution process. In researching the NETmudial website, there was a transparent process that allowed participants to contribute through online submissions. There were 188 contributions coming from 49 countries with 45% of all the contributions coming from the US, UK Brazil, India and Switzerland. Here you can find a summary of the contributions to NETmudial’s content: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Content-Contribution-Summary_1703_final.pdf. What was particularly interesting were the NETmudial comments that were contributed by developing countries, which can be found here: http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NETmundial-Comments.xlsx and here as formalized individual submissions: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs.

I would only begin to question the perspective of an ‘open process’. Due to time constraints, NETmudial were only able to take contributions in English. Additionally, they limited participation numbers but ensured that each country had at least one representative. This leaves me to question the validity of their inclusion based on their language barriers and selection of participants.

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
----
Tough reading. The NetMundial project came about from a general consensus that existed amongst internet governance and internet policy deevelopers that the infrastructure and control of much of the internet protocols worldwide were in the hands of a few players. After the revelations of widespread NSA surveillance on U.S citizens and other countries, it was decided that some action was needed to level the playing field and allow other stakeholders to guide the development of world wide internet governance so that the power and access of information is not held amongst a few key players.

The NetMundial meeting in brazil in 2014 sought put down in writing some principles of equal access and control of the internet which most governments and influential players already agreed on, and it sought to lay down a plan of future rules and governance that were flexible enough and could adapt to emerging technologies.

Notable is the reluctance of major search engines to allow regional data centers in other countries, and their efforts to keep ICANN in the U.S. rather than under international control.
[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T04:13:46Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 31st. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

'''Upload your file here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]'''

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

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

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

==Submission Instructions==

You can use the same bullet format if you wish:

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

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

==Submissions==

'''User:''' Erika L. Rich

'''Title:''' Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Warrior Forum Message Board

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_3.docx

----

'''User:''' Chanel Rion

'''Title:''' We the Judges: Sitejabber -- Navigating Challenges of User-Generated Review Sites

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment3_Project_Outline.docx

----

'''User:''' MattK

'''Title:''' Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing the Effectiveness of John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment3.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

----

'''Name:''' Emily MacIntyre

'''Title:''' Analyzing the Legal Challenges and Chilling Effects of the Nintendo Creator Program through a Representative Survey of Let’s Play Videos and Vlogs

'''Link:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_3.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

File:LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 3.docx

2015-03-31T04:09:43Z

ErikaLRich: LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 3

LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 3

Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

2015-03-22T18:47:35Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest –
hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dothman Dalia Othman], a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, New Media, New Civics?] (read "The Thick and the Thin of Participatory Civics", skim rest)

* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Gabriella Coleman, Anonymous from lulz to activists] (from 0:00 to 54:26)

; Case Studies

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (pg. 4-10 only)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf Rob Faris et al., Score Another One for the Open Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Debate] (read intro and conclusion, skim rest)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent] (read Key Findings and Introduction, skim rest)

* [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis, Civic Media Project] (peruse)

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, "The networked structure of the blogosphere;" skim "How skewedness affects politics;" read "The constraints on blog influence" and conclusion)

* [https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/molly-sauter-and-the-coming-swarm-a-fireside-chat Erhardt Graeff, Molly Sauter and the Coming Swarm: A Fireside Chat]

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

* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]

* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)

* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]

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

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

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

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, ''The Wealth of Networks''] (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)'''</div>

Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook's new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people's freedom of expression would be insulted. "How dare they censor me!" are the cries being heard.

That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don't like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.

What do you all think?

Soundbites from the NYTimes Article:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0

'''Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why'''

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”

'''And another writeup:'''
http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

Just to add my viewpoint, this was my response to a friend that posted the above Pontiac Tribune link on Facebook. I may of course only be in the minority.:

<blockquote><i>I was reading this, and as someone who does not usually post anything controversial unless it's about which hard wood is better for making a portable bar, I thought this was interesting enough to take a devil's advocate stand on. Facebook is not a government agency. It's a private enterprise (I don't mean private company in relation to I know it's 'publicly traded').

Therefore what they allow and don't allow is completely and utterly their choice. We don't have to use Facebook. We can go create our own blogs, our own sites, post our own content on a forum that we own and control, without risk of being "banned". Now depending on what you are posting, you may or may not run afoul of the government, but that's between you and the government, and maybe the terms and conditions of wherever you are hosting said content.... but overall, I don't see this as a "freedom of speech" argument.

This quote from the article is rather disingenuous. "Facebook has decided to become the world’s censor. This may end up being the final nail in the coffin of a social media outlet that has seen users flee from other idiotic policies." (I doubt it by the way - the nail analogy)

Facebook is only becoming the thought police FOR THEMSELVES. If they don't want certain content on THEIR servers, being fed to the masses that are THEIR users, then that is THEIR prerogative, not ours.

Will people abandon Facebook because their feelings are hurt that they can't share that rape video? Or that gang beating? Or that gorgeous naked man with the sculpted 6-pack? Or whatever else pissed FB off? Of course. So be it. Get out of the sandbox and go build your own.</i></blockquote>

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

2015-03-22T18:46:47Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

2015-03-22T18:45:38Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest –
hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dothman Dalia Othman], a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, New Media, New Civics?] (read "The Thick and the Thin of Participatory Civics", skim rest)

* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Gabriella Coleman, Anonymous from lulz to activists] (from 0:00 to 54:26)

; Case Studies

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (pg. 4-10 only)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf Rob Faris et al., Score Another One for the Open Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Debate] (read intro and conclusion, skim rest)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent] (read Key Findings and Introduction, skim rest)

* [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis, Civic Media Project] (peruse)

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, "The networked structure of the blogosphere;" skim "How skewedness affects politics;" read "The constraints on blog influence" and conclusion)

* [https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/molly-sauter-and-the-coming-swarm-a-fireside-chat Erhardt Graeff, Molly Sauter and the Coming Swarm: A Fireside Chat]

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

* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]

* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)

* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]

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

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

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

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, ''The Wealth of Networks''] (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)'''</div>

Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook's new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people's freedom of expression would be insulted. "How dare they censor me!" are the cries being heard.

That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don't like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.

What do you all think?

Soundbites from the NYTimes Article:
http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

'''Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why'''

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”

'''And another writeup:'''
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0

Just to add my viewpoint, this was my response to a friend that posted the link. I may of course only be in the minority.:

<blockquote><i>I was reading this, and as someone who does not usually post anything controversial unless it's about which hard wood is better for making a portable bar, I thought this was interesting enough to take a devil's advocate stand on. Facebook is not a government agency. It's a private enterprise (I don't mean private company in relation to I know it's 'publicly traded').

Therefore what they allow and don't allow is completely and utterly their choice. We don't have to use Facebook. We can go create our own blogs, our own sites, post our own content on a forum that we own and control, without risk of being "banned". Now depending on what you are posting, you may or may not run afoul of the government, but that's between you and the government, and maybe the terms and conditions of wherever you are hosting said content.... but overall, I don't see this as a "freedom of speech" argument.

This quote from the article is rather disingenuous. "Facebook has decided to become the world’s censor. This may end up being the final nail in the coffin of a social media outlet that has seen users flee from other idiotic policies." (I doubt it by the way - the nail analogy)

Facebook is only becoming the thought police FOR THEMSELVES. If they don't want certain content on THEIR servers, being fed to the masses that are THEIR users, then that is THEIR prerogative, not ours.

Will people abandon Facebook because their feelings are hurt that they can't share that rape video? Or that gang beating? Or that gorgeous naked man with the sculpted 6-pack? Or whatever else pissed FB off? Of course. So be it. Get out of the sandbox and go build your own.</i></blockquote>

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

2015-03-22T18:28:28Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */ Facebook Banning Policy

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 24'''

Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest –
hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dothman Dalia Othman], a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; Framing

* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, New Media, New Civics?] (read "The Thick and the Thin of Participatory Civics", skim rest)

* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")

; Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Gabriella Coleman, Anonymous from lulz to activists] (from 0:00 to 54:26)

; Case Studies

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (pg. 4-10 only)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf Rob Faris et al., Score Another One for the Open Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Debate] (read intro and conclusion, skim rest)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent] (read Key Findings and Introduction, skim rest)

* [http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis, Civic Media Project] (peruse)

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, "The networked structure of the blogosphere;" skim "How skewedness affects politics;" read "The constraints on blog influence" and conclusion)

* [https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/molly-sauter-and-the-coming-swarm-a-fireside-chat Erhardt Graeff, Molly Sauter and the Coming Swarm: A Fireside Chat]

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

* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]

* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)

* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]

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

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

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

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, ''The Wealth of Networks''] (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)'''</div>

Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook's new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people's freedom of expression would be insulted. "How dare they censor me!" are the cries being heard.

That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don't like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.

What do you all think?

Soundbites from the NYTimes Article:
http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

'''Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why'''

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”

'''And another writeup:'''
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

User talk:Caelum

2015-03-11T00:42:37Z

ErikaLRich: Comments about Final Paper Prospectus

An excellent topic! One I wish I had thought of.

As a long time member of Digg, I am interested to read where your study goes.

From a personal perspective, I used Digg (way back) as a resource to promote websites, and help create links and "search engine juice" in order to get more favorable Google rankings for a large network of sites that I ran. Digg was a monster in its heyday, but its collapse seemed inevitable.

The voting system could indeed be gamed, and "voters" could be bought for pennies, causing massive upheavals across the board for certain articles and categories. This of course angered long time users that took their "job" of voting articles up or down very seriously.

As a resource, you may find this Wired article useful "I Bought Votes on Digg":
http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72832?currentPage=all

This quote could help to dig further (no pun intended):

From: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/32417-niche-marketing-buy-digg-votes.html

"As I understand it, to rise up the rankings it's not necessarily the amount of votes but the quality of the people voting. (apparently diggs algorithm bases this on things such as the length of time a user has been on digg, how often they digg, the quality of the posts they dig etc). "

Good luck and look forward to reading the final paper!

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-11T00:41:27Z

ErikaLRich: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

''Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.''

This assignment is due on March 3rd. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

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

Upload your rough draft here: [[Special:Upload|Upload file]]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [[Special:ImageList|list of uploaded files]].

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

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

==Comments==

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 10th so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.''' If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!

Ryan Hurley

Facebook & Big Data vs. Your Privacy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus_FB_and_privacy_Assignment_2.docx

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Ryan,
Great topic choice. Without fail, every single time I have a class on Big Data I obsessively delete aspects of my online presence, cut up frequent customer member cards, and google myself. It’s a hilarious cycle. I am so excited to read your paper and I appreciate the range of content you have considered for the paper, as well as the range of your references. I have an online text for another IT class that has a chapter devoted to FaceBook and their privacy issues. Please, email me and I can send it to you. Also, make sure to keep in mind that FaceBook’s relationships with advertisers and users are changing constantly. A three year old article might give you more context for your research, but very likely reports on policies that are out of date.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Ryan, Great work, I think this is a very interesting area, I think that facebook does in a way uses information to target ads, and also the fact that it associates you with people that you may know is a relevant fact. As far as privacy issues, it would be a good idea to study the subscription agreement to see what is is said with reference to the idea of paying with information, or kind of like the purpose at hand of facebook.
Excellent work, I think that you may be benefited from finding a community in which you can show how this problem is handled to contrast, that just an idea.

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Hi Ryan – your topic is a very interesting one, and it’s something that I think about a lot as a Facebook user. It will be specifically interesting to see how this manifests itself on a page like Nike’s, where users are particularly engaged with information around new product releases and ad campaigns. I’m curious to see the difference between the information Facebook is able to glean from users engaging with a brand versus what Nike can glean – my hunch is that Facebook is privy to much more information, but they then use it to inform their advertising decisions, which could then affect Nike. I would be curious to hear for sure, though, as you do more research. One other thing that might be worth exploring is the devil’s advocate perspective – that is, are there any ways that Facebook sharing your information with brands could be helpful? Every so often, I see a Facebook ad targeted to me that actually interests me, and in that case, it has benefited me as a consumer. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it was meant to. What’s the benefit versus the cost? Good luck, and I’m intrigued to hear more as you continue to develop the project.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Ryan- I like your topic of Facebook and privacy as this is something that interests many, if not all of us. Several times I have logged into my Facebook and there are advertisments directly suited for me-- although interesting and something I would normally click on, the idea of privacy does comes up. One thing I recommend is to look into the settings tab as I believe there are different ways to control the information shared with others-- it may not be entirely obvious to control but certain settings allow certain information to be shared (or not shared) so you may want to do some deep research with that. I look forward to reading your research!
-Caroline
[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Ryan,

Your topic of choice (brand pages on Facebook) is interesting. The brand pages are marketing tools and the companies would certainly love to learn as much as they could about the page’s visitors.

I know someone who runs a Facebook brand page for their small business and he said that a brand page provides data analytics on it. It allows him to learn about demographic information of people who like his page (age, location) and how effective his FB posts are. It sounds about on par with the kind of information other websites are tracking when people visit their sites, so I’m looking forward to seeing what you can unearth about those brand pages.

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 13:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Ryan,

The topic you chose is very interesting, since it's a current concern that most of social media users have. What I liked the most was the focus you decided to give to your project, which comprises the study on how a particular brand community page can use users personal information without their “explicit” consent in order to create more targeted advertising. That's a very interesting perspective and I suggest you to study the limit of responsibility between Facebook and the brand that owners the page regarding privacy.

Good work!

[[User:Natasha Jalbut|njalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Olivia Brinich

Intentions and Outcomes of Youtube’s Copyright and Coding Regulations

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Oliviabrinich_prospectus03.03.15.pdf

[[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Comments on Olivia's Prospectus:

Hi Olivia,

Let me start by saying I think that Youtube is a great source for your project. I’m not saying that just because I am doing my paper on Youtube. I find the creative ways that people are using it fascinating. Much more so than some of the other platforms.

If I may summarize, you plan to discuss how legal pressures forced Youtube to introduce technologies that changed the user experiences, like Copyright ID. You also mentioned some other (possibly voluntary) technologies that are part of the user experience with the intent to discuss how they impact users. I think they are good ideas and good concepts to write about.

As you rightly point the Youtube community is one of the largest communities on the Internet. I wonder if it might not be taking on too much to try to examine Youtube as a whole. I would suggest selecting a small group that is susceptible to the effects of the technologies you are reviewing. Describe who the group is and how certain characteristics of their make-up or user experience make them particularly sensitive to the technologies you will focus on.

For example I will be focusing on hobbyist inventors. Guys that spend their weekends in the garage putting “junk” together and posting videos about their “inventions” on Youtube. Their content is all original so they are not impacted by Copyright ID. There is very little thumbs up/down. They are a much more “expressive” crowd as the comments indicate.

I’m not trying to discourage you. I think if you pick the right group and tell us why you picked them, it can very interesting. I hope that is helpful.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

I Olivia, I think that this is a very interesting topic, it revolves around the idea of how you tube deals with privacy, and the balance of how it benefits itself vs. the users. I think that one interesting part I read from your prospectus, and you can also incorporate this idea, was how copyright is dealt in you tube, the idea of how deal when someone may alter or damages someone else's work with out permission, those are certainly great areas, so I think the question would be whether you tube creates a risk to the privacy rights of users as well as copy rights risks and how this could be dealt.
Great work.

Edwin (20:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Oliva- nice topic-- youtube is something that interests us all so it will be interesting to read your paper. I, too, am curious with how youtube as a whole determines copyright and when they need to step in. You may want to research on the web if there are artcles on videos that have been taken down due to copyright. It will be interrsting to see when and why the copyright came into play. looks great- good luck! -Caroline [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 12:22, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
-----

Hi Olivia,
I really like the options you can explore with this interesting topic! The one thing that stuck out to me in the prospectus was the "significant events" comment at the end. What will make these events significant?

----
• Erika L Rich

• Title: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of the Internet Marketing Super Friends (IMSF) Facebook Group

• Link: [[File:LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_2.docx]]

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hey Erika,

It's great that you chose to focus on on specific Facebook group for your topic. I am still a bit confused about the purpose of the group and the demographics of its members. Who are the members? What do they gain from membership? How many members are active participants that make substansive contributions versus inactive members? Once your audience understands more about the group itself, they will relate to this example and be more invested in your topic. Another suggestion I have is to focus on the effects of the moderators on the content of the group (instead of cyber security for example). You mention culture differences coming in to play and affecting content. Can you explain that further?
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Erica,

I think you did a wonderful job, it is certainly a very interesting topic, my self I am doing research about facebook for my topic, however I had a little bit of trouble flowing with the issue presented as the problem, maybe if you can include examples to illustrate the paper could flow better, I think the basic idea is the way how facebook handles privacy matters for its benefit vs the benefit of the user, you could go on explaining about htis with examples and your paper will be even greater.

Edwin (20:09, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Erika,

This is a very interesting topic. Within your prospectus, you made a statement alluding to the deleting of posts due to cultural divide rather than lack of adhering to community guidelines. I think would be a great area to explore further. Why do moderators remove such post that are not against community guidelines and how does this impact community contributions and censorship?

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:16, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Erika,

This is a very interesting topic; I like the fact that you started making comparisons between the concepts we learned in class and some aspects of this marketing group.

Are you a member of this group by any chance?

It’ll be interesting to learn how people would enforce the no stealing rule. Has there been any occasions where people learned that their idea has been stolen and they complained to the page moderators?

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 13:43, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
• Emily MacIntyre (EmiMac)

• Prospectus title: A Case Study on the Unintended Legal Consequences and Chilling Effects of YouTube’s Content ID Sweep on its Video Game Commentator Community

• Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Emily_MacIntyre_Assignment_2.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:41, 2 March 2015 (EST)

-----

I love any studies that have to do with Google, and especially YouTube because of the far reaching implications any sort of action in this area causes. Google is well know in my circles for causing wide-spread panic at the flick of an algorithm update switch, so finding out the exact causes of the copyright sweep would be fascinating reading.

The biggest area of concern here, for many of the people that had their videos taken down, was that it affected a lot of livelihoods. Even though users agree to YouTube's terms of services, I wonder what would have happened had any of them taken Google to court for affecting their ability to support their families? Whilst many users do it for secondary income, some do use it as a primary means of income.

Looking through the lens of our class studies would really help cement many of the discussions we've been having about freedom of speech and copyright protections.

Looking forward to reading your final paper!

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-----

Hi Emily, This is a great area, you could find some ideas by examining how users can damage or alter someone else's work and privacy issues, I think that you should explain the law of the particular area, and explain how it applies to the group your are presenting, explain to a specific targeted audience, like tennagers, or famous people, etc, and use qualitative and quantitative data to draw conclusions, and inferences, this could help get the point across that you choose. Great work.

Edwin (20:13, 9 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Emily,

Great job on your prospectus! It is very well organized, and your citations sources are well researched. I found your research really enticing because I had never heard of this sweep, and I consider myself an avid youtube visitor. I think you are on to a great research project. Although the topic is remarkably fascinating, I wonder if investigating and juxtaposing the different types of monitoring will be too large or too abstract for the limit of the project. I also read up on the PewDiePie character cited, and I think it is really fascinating to see that he has 35 mil subscribers, yet chose to turn off his commenting feature because of how volatile he claimed the space was becoming. His specific youtube channel then does not have a community to investigate. But it would be interesting to examine someone or a specific youtube channel that has a similar following as the case study to better help zone in on collecting and investigating data. Thank you for this topic, I am currently reading more about the youtube actions in 2008 and 2013 because I had little to no prior knowledge of both events.

Good luck on your project!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

RE: Mhoching,

Thank you for your comment. I very much like your prospectus topic as well as you can see from my comments below. With regards to my final project, I thought I should reiterate and clarify that my community is the YouTube contributors that concentrate on making Let’s Plays and video game reviews. While it is helpful to find a video with an active comment section, where other users further explain how the ID sweep influences their output choices, in the case of PewDiePie, his decision to turn off his comment section does in part illustrate how YouTube has rapidly evolved. Since Google began catering to commercial enterprises over the original volunteer contributors, some of the volunteer contributors have become increasingly more frustrated and they exhibit their frustration in a variety of ways.

Thanks Again,

Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----
• MattK

• Home of the Mallet of Loving Correction: John Scalzi's Blog, "Whatever"

• http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment2.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Matt,

I am particularly interested in your topic because I believe it is a very small example of what the internet could become or arguably is becoming in regards to free speech. I am very intrigued by the notion of "knowledge is power". What I mean relative to your project is that I believe that those who can control what "knowledge" people receive therefore posses great power. In your case, Scalzi's blog is equipped with a comment section where total control is given to Scalzi on what to allow others to see. By censoring whatever Scalzi sees as "offensive" he is limiting a voice, whether good or bad, and therefore limiting knowledge. I would argue that there's no question that the term knowledge here is used very loosely and there are obvious comments on these sorts of forums which provide no overall good at all, but more importantly the question I think of is how dangerous it would be for one person to posses this sort of "editorial power" to simply delete anything they see unfit. What would happen if other sites also used this sort of policy where whatever is subjectively deemed unworthy of being a comment was deleted? Are there infact other online sites and forums that take this approach? What implications does this approach have for the audience of the site? Does it discourage participation as a sort of chilling effect? It is a scary world to imagine where one party possess the power of what information to provide and what to censor. In this specific case what if the comments are simply against Scalzi and are a disagreement with what he writes? What is to stop him from simply deleting something. I'm curious to know what sort of checks and balances or accountability Scarzi's editorial powers has. I think your subject bears the question of where to draw the line between free speech and productive censorship, an enormously tricky and potentially dangerous distinction.

These are just a few thoughts I had, in any case best of luck it's a great topic.

Thanks,
Ryan Hurley
[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Matt – what a fascinating topic! I have never visited John Scalzi’s blog before, but after reading your prospectus, I immediately went to it and started digging into the posts and comments. I think it will be a great microcosm to explore the effects of censorship from a private party, as well as the effects of a very specific set of content rules. This may be too time consuming, but it would be really cool if you could catch some of the offensive comments before they get deleted, so that you can see specific examples of the types of comments John Scalzi will not tolerate. Is he moderating effectively according to the standards he has defined? Are there any posts that are “on the line” that you might have left up?

This could also be a good opportunity to delve into the ideas of Susan Benesch that we read this past week. For example, do you notice any opportunities where counter speech might be more effective than censorship? Once a post is censored, do any users retaliate in a way that suggests they haven’t learned their lesson? Do any users engage with offensive posts before they get taken down?

Looking forward to seeing where your research leads – good luck!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

HI Matt!

I can really relate to your topic for several reasons. I read Scalzi’s Red Shirts, and I absolutely loved it. His “voice” is phenomenal. I also read a long time blog (though not quite as long as his) from Patrick Rothfuss, a fellow fantasy writer who has mentioned Scalzi in several posts, and I get the general vibe your paper is going for. My topic is on the regulations of the comment threads on Youtube, so we’re both looking at editing comments essentially, and that boils down to a lot of the same basic questions on freedom of expression and knowledge squared against concerns for public decency. The difference is between that of a democracy and a dictatorship, because Scalzi can freely let loose virtual lightening bolts that leave trolling comments in a pile of metaphorical ash. I really think looking at what forces check Scalzi is interesting, since there are no real tangible forces because its his personal blog. The intangibles like respect for freedom of expression and differences of opinion come into play and fun to think about. I would maybe propose that you also think about how his comment sections would look like life if he didn't have direction control. The differences in quality and what is lost weighed against what is gained might be a fun tangent to add some depth for the reader. If you want an extra pair of eyes to run it by once you have a draft, just reach out and let me know! wesleyverge@g.harvard.edu

Wesley

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Edwin Duque (Edwinduque)

Prospectus Title:The copyright, privacy and organization challenges that online communities such as Facebook and The Jury Deliberation in the cyber space are faced with

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Edwinduque_Assignment_2.doc

([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Edwin,

I like the way you structured your idea. I think that the copyright issue is very interesting and it is worthed spending some more time on it. Exploring the nature of a Facebook post – whether it could be consider as an “idea”, in the Copyright Act specifically states that In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, regardless of the form in which it is described. Or it could be considered as an “original works of authorship” fixed by the author in a tangible way, in which case it would be covered by copyrights. The issue of re-posting someone else’s post with commercial purposes could be interesting to mention as well. It is just an idea, but saying some words about the case with the famous Facebook post “In response to the new Facebook guidelines…. “ might be interesting too. I think that you could also easily link your work to the “right to be forgotten” issues we discussed in class.

Here are some links you might find useful. Good luck!

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hi Edwin,

I am very interested in your topic; but unlike Gia, I am concerned with the structure. As currently presented, your prospectus is using two distinctly different communities to research information sharing, which makes it feel a bit disjointed. While your background research will be consistent, the exploration of Facebook and Jury X will present some distinct copyright and privacy issues. This is further supported by the differences of your 'Issue' questions for each community. I think once you delve into the topic further, there will be enough information and case studies to focus on one community. Or you can explore issues that are consistent in both communities, which will allow for continuity in your project.

Tasha [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

-------
Edwin,

This seems like a very interesting topic but I worry that it may be a little broad. For example, "whether a Facebook member can infringe copyright laws by sharing someone else's ideas" could mean so many different things depending on the information being shared. Copyright laws are quite diverse from subject to subject so it might be better to pick a particular copyright issue. Another example that may be a little broad is "whether facebook advertising actions are an invasion of privacy." I would maybe choose a few types of actions instead of trying to tackle a lot of them. I understand that because this is a prospectus you probably were planning on doing these kinds of things once you actually begin writing, but I thought I would just point it out. I like your thought processes a lot and it seems like it has a lot of great potential!

([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Name: Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Prospectus title: Balancing privacy for victims of sexual crimes with
opportunity for support in online forum AfterSilence.org

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hello Michelle,

You've chosen a challenging topic to write about, not just in the realm of privacy, but in subject matter.

Online communities have long been the support system for many an introvert over the years. Their importance is often overshadowed by those that think users put too much of their lives on the Internet, opening themselves up to possible crimes, bullying, and other potential misdeeds.

Sexual abuse of any type is so hard to talk about in person, that being able to hide behind a screen and share feelings and experiences without fear of being "found" is a life preserver for victims. Unfortunately, where users unknowingly reveal their identities is often a case of either not knowing how to use a forum or simply naivete.

Many people that find themselves in a community like this may be online for the very first time, trying to figure out how to deal with a traumatizing event and are often not exactly in the right frame of mind.

Of course there are no controls to figure out a users experience, so it up to the moderators to police for them, protect them from harm, and at the same time not trample on how they wish to be "heard and seen" in the support forum. It's a very fine line to tread and not for the weak of heart.

Good luck in your research and look forward to reading the results.

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle,

You have chosen a terrifically nuanced community. Indeed, the word “balance” and the question of HOW such a community can possibly approach this word is bound to yield more data and conclusions than the page ljmits of our final project – which is only testimony to the strength of your community research choice. I believe yours is the most psychologically-based prospectus that I have read thus far.

By “psychologically-based,” I mean that I sense that you will be making some conclusions about the specialized mindsets and individuals who are drawn to this community; a community that paradoxically, and in waves, seem to wish for both anonymity and at the same time, a very specific and difficult kind of attention. Anonymous attention. A community that has created a safe haven and yet, has some very troubling cracks, as you point out.

Questions:
Are these cracks mostly user generated? As in, the example you found of the poster who revealed configurable data revealing her identity. If they are mostly user-generated, how prevalent of an instance is this? Of the active users who reveal private information, what instances are accidental or ignorant (as in, thinking they’ll be anonymous by revealing age, town, etc) as opposed to intentional?

Is there some kind of warning or clause in the user agreement that attempts to address this issue of accidentally revealing private information or even purposefully revealing it?

If the user agreement and the rules and guidelines for AfterSilence.org do address this issue and users still post personal information, what are the pros and cons of simply warning users about the risks and then letting users do as they please vs. taking pro-active measures?

If there were pro-active measures for a site host like this to take, what would they be? Message board community reminders? Moderators who redact info? Self-regulation and regulation amongst members? What does regulation in this kind of community actually look like and is it sustainable in its current form?

Many more questions and considerations to make. Good topic choice, succinctly proposed. I wish you all the best in this project and I look forward to reading the final project.

Best,
Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Michelle,

Good choice in topic. You’ve identified an online community that has a serious need of privacy but also a potentially revitalizing need for contact with others who have had similar experiences. You have clearly already done some good research on how the website operates. Perhaps a next step that could add another layer would be to see what (if any) legal protections the website needs to comply with. Do crime victims get special protection, or if they surrender their information, is it their own fault? Good luck!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Michelle – I’m really interested in this topic and curious to hear where your research leads. I think you have developed a really great framework for researching the challenges the community faces. I’m curious whether AfterSilence itself has explicit privacy policies, and if so, what they outline? Also, does the site do any moderating of posts that perhaps reveal “too much” information? On the other hand, I’m curious whether there are any users who don’t have the expectation of privacy, and who willingly share their identity/personal information? If so, how does that affect the dynamic on the site? Based on our readings and discussion about the “right to be forgotten,” it might also be worth doing some Google searches to see what makes certain posts from the site crop up in results. I would be curious to see how Google’s algorithm handles these searches, and whether it is actually publicizing user information beyond what the women on the site might be comfortable with. Looking forward to seeing your continued work on this!

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Chanel Rion (ChanelRion)

Prospectus Title: '''''We the Judges: "Sitejabber", "Yelp", and Communities of User-Generated Business Reviews.'''''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment2_Prospectus_Rion.docx

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

The subject of customer generated reviews is certainly huge on the internet. It is beneficial for consumers to get an opinion of a product or restaurant from other people over just what the advertising says. But as you point out, there is a lot of opportunity for libel or slander – especially people just having an ax to grind. It would be interesting to see how Yelp or Sitejabber are being responsible and making an effort to regulate content and protect places being reviewed from harassing content. I like how your approach includes researching any legal cases brought against them; it would be interesting to see if any of them prevail. Also, how do they actually calculate the ratings? Is it an average of overall ratings? Or could bad reviews be hidden away if there become lots of positive reviews? Are businesses sandbagging to increase their ratings?

Overall, this is a great community to look into and I wish you success!

Michelle aka (Chelly)
[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:43, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----

RE: Michelle

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your comments and feedback. I too, am especially interested in the legal angles to this community and I am glad to know I'm not the only one. I will certainly be watching and reviewing and seeking the answers to these questions and also to your specific concerns. All intensely pertinent to how businesses and communities are going to manage tensions with each other -- tensions that have always been here, but are now revolutionized in simply the sheer and complete access that the Internet provides to all of us.

Looking forward to starting this seek and find. Thank you for highlighting questions and focuses, they should prove helpful for such a broad category.

Best,

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hi Chanel,

This is an awesome topic! I am many people utilize such sites when looking for a restaurant or service. Approximately a year ago, I spoke with someone who worked at Yelp and asked many of the questions you are researching. One area that would be interesting for you to explore is user rating. There are users who have premium status; therefore, they have a higher level of 'credibility' with there reviews. It would be interesting to know if there is a vetting system for high level contributors. Additionally, there are quite a few FTC complaints and lawsuits in regards to Yelp and other feedback review systems. Here is a current case that may assist in your research: http://www.scribd.com/doc/244906228/Kimzey-v-Yelp-Inc-Opening-Brief#scribd
[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 11:57, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Chanel- great choice in topic! Several months back, I read an article on a restaurant manager asking his customers to provide negative feedback for an experiement in resarching and using YELP. I recommend you find some information on that and work into your paper-- it may be interesting to see what that outcome was in terms of customers and how YELP played into the overall aspect of the restaurant. -Caroline [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 12:03, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Name: Becca Lewis (beccalew)

Prospectus Title: '''/r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/feminism: The challenges of promoting feminism on Reddit while upholding the values of privacy and free speech'''

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Prospectus_Becca_Lewis.docx

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Hi Chanel,

I like your chosen subject matter. This definitely is a growing concern as a fake bad review on a site like Yelp can severely hurt businesses, especially small family owned business. Many of these businesses are what people aspire to as part of their American dream and now there is a lot more power in each users hands as to whether they will be successful or not. I believe an area that might be interesting to explore is the power that the business owners have to comment back or control their own reviews. (I say this out of personal experience where I’ve left a negative review about a company and had the owner respond claiming my statements about the quality of service were a lie.) I’ve also seen instances of restaurant names being posted online due to their anti-LGBT stances and having swarms of people who have never been customers at the establishments giving them negative reviews. A similar but more nationally recognized story was with Amy’s Baking Company featured on Kitchen Nightmares. I’m not sure how Yelp responded to those reviews, but it would be interesting to explore those past cases.

Best of luck!
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:43, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Hi Becca!
I absolutely love the theme of your project, it is an exceptional live issue since feminism has been discussed much more this past year than it has been for many years. Therefore, it´s really important to examine the forums in which people have the opportunity to discuss the subject. Great!

I also found it cool that you are thinking about recording a podcast for the project. If you do so, you might consider including an interview with someone active in the specific forums, a professor in gender studies or perhaps two people with different views on the issue?

I have a question about the subreddits you talked about though. You wrote about a ”safe space” for women. Are those subreddits only for women or are they open for anyone who want to discuss feminism and gender roles? If it is a women-only forum, you might also discuss the consequences on that. If not, maybe that has consequences as well. Maybe you should discuss self censorship in the feminism subreddits as well (which is very interesting since Reddit-as you said-values free speech above almost all else)?

Good luck!
/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello Becca,

Your avenue of research should prove quite illuminating for creating feminist spaces, in online fora dominated by men. Interestingly, your topic dovetails with this weeks readings, concerning hate speech and other charged language, which is used far to readily in online fora. It would be interesting to see if the users in the two subreddits. /r/TwoXChromosomes and /r/Feminism, have tried using counterspeech, when confronted with offensive or antagonising posts. Mind, if the moderator of r/Feminism is in fact trying to subvert this positive feminist space, would that violate any of Reddit's policies? If not, are there any policies governing the role of moderator?

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Becca,

I echo what the others have said: I like the timing and the specificity of the topic. There are certainly a lot of feminist voices on the Internet, but I don’t hear them coming from Reddit too often. I’m eager to hear your final presentation!

This isn’t so much a suggestion as it is a question I don’t know the answer to: are the feminists in those subreddits the community, or does the community include all folks who post? The answer to that question might make your final analysis a little harder to pin down.
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Hi Becca,

LOVE your interesting perspective - did not know this was happening on reddit. The one thing that concerned me in your prospectus was phraseology such as "the female experience" or the "feminist community." I think these terms may be a little broad and it might make sense to outline in your paper more of the kinds of communities these are (which I'm sure you will). A straight, white feminist online space may be policed less and in different ways than say a queer feminist space or any other kinds of spaces. Just something to consider!

([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 15:29, 10 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Name: Gary Brown (Gary Brown)

Prospectus Title: The Effects of Site Controls on Community Objectives: communityfunded.com

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Comments on Gary's Prospectus:

Gary,

Great topic! I hope to be going out to for crowdfunding by the end of the May. So I will follow your Wiki with interest. (In your proposal you link to crowdfunded. I think you meant community funded. You may want to look at that.)

You mentioned the stated purpose of Communityfunded. But you did not mention their reason for existing. In other words, what started crowdfunding and why would individuals seek funds for their projects from the public and not other traditional sources. Why are people like me willing to go online (to communityfunded) to ask for money, as opposed to going to another site or pitching a Venture Capitalist or a bank? Why would people fund a project on line versus invest in the stock market or Bank CDs?

I think that the answer to those questions goes to the heart of crowdfunding. It also is germane to the “troublesome obstacles” you refer to in your prospectus.

When you mention failed projects, I would suggest that not all failures are the same. I might be willing to invest money in a project I consider socially redeeming even if I thought it had very little chance of success. Where as, if I were investing in some Harvard wiz-kids that profess to have the next Facebook, I might have very different feelings if they went belly up. So you may want to include categories of projects, or claims/expectations in your discussions. As well as any risk factor ratings.

You also mentioned building and keeping trust of supporters. One of the areas that interests me is the ways that Fundraisers generate funding support. Do they rely solely on the site? In other words, is there a pool of would be investors just waiting for the right idea to come around so they can invest. Or is a fundraiser expected to go outside the community and raise interest and drive that interest back to the site? How does that impact the “trust” factor? If I am a one-time fundraiser does it matter all that much what people think about me after I’ve got my money?

You discuss how you will break down funded projects, etc. Is there a way to figure out what various fundraiser did to get funded? Marketing may prove to be more of a factor than the project or its worthiness.

It would certainly be worthwhile to compare and contrast crowdfunding before and after changes in regs that made it easier for the public to invest. And how post reg trends may lead to new regs/controls.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Best,

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 20:45, 4 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hey Gary, this is a fun topic. I have a few comments/questions for you to think about.

First, does CF vet any of the projects at the moment? If so, how and do you agree with it? Also consider that it may be more efficient to put all the projects out there and leave it to the community to “vet” them by either funding them or not. Perhaps the projects attracting the most dollars could float to the top of the page, or there could be different sorting filters (i.e. project categories (tech, games, etc.), most viewed, almost at goal, new, etc.). Maybe there could be a user upvote/down vote model akin to Reddit.com.

Also, are there stipulations on fund seekers? For example, if they set a dollar goal and a deadline, they get all or nothing? Or if it’s a startup company seeking money, funders get a % of the profits? Not sure if I’m thinking of kickstarter.com’s model but that could be an interesting comparison.

And what do you think about projects’ success rates? Does CF need to ensure a high success rate? Or is there a value in failed projects? I find that when people donate money they want to leave little or no room for experimentation or failure (i.e. all non-profits) even though we know that experimentation is key to stumbling on progress.

As far as actual dollars raised, would fund seekers be better off soliciting corporate donations or venture capital funding? And are donations to websites like these tax deductible? I’m not sure.

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Meagan HoChing (mhoching)

Title: Online Gaming Harassment: All fun and games?

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mhoching_Assignment2.docx

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Meagan,

Every aspect of your prospectus is incredibly interesting to me. I am especially intrigued by how well you have matched up the readings to your topic.

After I read your section on Norms I thought about how you point out that “the gaming system is very competitive” and it made me wonder, if Valve placed more restrictions to prevent bullying could it potentially take some of the pleasure of competition out of the mix. If so, then would some users leave the game because they like the hostile environment, which may be why they chose to play in it in the first place. Keeping this line of thought in mind, perhaps you could find another similar community that has more strict modes of control in place to observe the differences between them.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your prospectus and I look forward to seeing your finished product.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

What an interesting and relevant subject!

I think that it was a very good idea of you to use the Dot Model with the components ”Market”, ”Architecture”, ”Norms” and ”Law”, it makes everything much more clear. I agree with Emily that it would be a good idea to compare DOTA 2 with another game, preferably from another website than STEAM and with another system of regulation. I would find it really interesting to see the result of a such a study and if norms, the language, the members of the site, etc. differ between the two games.

I´m looking forward to see the result! Good luck!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Meagan!

I think this is a very fascinating topic and one I too almost pursued. I am a bit of a gamer myself and although I don't play DOTA, I do regularly play many different sports games which I have found to have similar issues of harassment and "bullying". I hadn't heard of the STEAM website you're focusing on until I read your assignment, but for anyone who has read really a comment section/forum anywhere, one second you're talking about a video game, the next you have gone down a path of hate and overall disgust of anyone different minded not to mention if it is a competitive game which stirrs up some hostile emotions toward an adversary. I find this particularly interesting when it comes to video games because many people who don't play video games believe that "it's just a game" but on the contrary for many gamers, one can find their self emotionally invested into a game you are taking part in. You feel this overwhelming sense of dedication to it and attachment to what happens in it where you can essentially lose yourself in the game. It is because of this hardwired competitive and primitive feeling and this element of motivation that I believe is so deeply rooted in many gamers that it would be near impossible to ever completely outlaw the harassment or trash talk because it will never stop. However perhaps there is some sort of way to outlaw the harassment that crosses a line by creating real consequence while still allowing some competitive jabbing but that I will be curious to see from your project. I will be also curious to hear what your research finds about the website in particular, I would venture to guess that it is probably similar for communities like the PSN and xboxlive.

I might suggest on top of all this to take a look at games which do not have a competitive nature with other users. This may be difficult to find but I'd be curious to see whether it is harassment you find on forums with these sort of games or rather a cooperative dialogue intended to help one another.

Good Luck!
- Ryan Hurley

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Meagan,

That's a very interesting subject, congrats! You divided the topic to analyze it in a very good manner. I agree with Emily and Josefin on that it would be great if you included a game from another website (but the same game), in order to compare their mechanisms of harassment/bullying control and the index of harassment of each website, so you'll be able to evaluate the mechanisms.

Good work!

[[User:Natasha Jalbut|njalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Caroline B

Title: The Study of Privacy, Accuracy & Order on InsideNova Website and Moving ‘Little Sites’ Up

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:1_Caroline_B.docx

[[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----
Caroline,
Something to for your paper is the current statistics on accessing news in the United States (online newspaper versus hard copy newspaper for example), and the devices used to access online news (iphone, android, ipad, laptop, desktop computer, etc). IBISWorld and Mintel might offer up to date statistics on news distribution/access. Google analytics offers insight on specific website views. Perhaps take a look at what the demographics of the visitors of this site are and try to find out why this site attracts these viewers. Comparing this site to other more popular news sites (like CNN as you mentioned) is a great idea. Currently, I think your proposal covers too wide a range of topics, so maybe consider focusing on just a few that you mentioned. (For example maybe narrow it to the three subjects max: privacy, journalists’ / contributors’ / editors’ / monitors’ control of content, the ethical policy of the site). If privacy is a big concern to you, I think you could focus your entire paper around it.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Hello Caroline,

Regional news site are an important part of the information ecosystem, for communities that are often not represented on larger news sites. The question of privacy is an interesting one, especially as users must register to post a comment on InsideNova. As a news organization, and a business, do advertisers get access to any user information? On the social media front, it looks like there is Facebook and Twitter integration with the site, which could raise privacy issues. This sounds like a good start, as Brooke mentioned, and will be interesting to see where your research takes you.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I like the fact that you chose a small, local website to focus on. I wonder if the company behind website also publishes the number of hits that the site gets, and if it’s comparable to the 200,000 households reached by their newspapers.

I’m interested in seeing your conclusion as to where the ‘line of privacy’ should be drawn in terms of disclosing personal information when contributing to the site. People have been talking about anonymity of pseudonyms vs. using real names and own up to whatever they’re posting, especially when commenting on anything. Do you happen to know if most people on that site prefer their real name or pseudonym when they post anything?

[[User:Rpeisch|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch|talk]]) 13:35, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Jan.Yburan

Prospectus title: Reddit.com/r/IAmA its Controls on Privacy and Content

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan.Yburan.Assignment2.docx

----
Hi Jan,

This is a really interesting community to build your case study around. Prior to today I have only been on the site a few times to look at subreddits that relate to topics that I am interested in, and since I am not a member I have not considered how the site protects the user’s privacy.

Today I decided to look at the IAmA subreddit to get a better handle of the scope of your project. Consequently, I came across and interesting and fairly benign thread started by an employee of a movie theater and it brought to mind, how does the site handle issues of privacy, libel or defamation against a company or a consumer when an employee engages in what appears at first glance as an anonymous tell all blog that highlights how he/she has witnessed vulgar and perhaps even criminal activity.

Considering your topic and direction you want to take, I think you might want to blend together aspects of the readings from our classes on privacy with the readings for next week’s class on free expression, information, and unwanted speech.

I am looking forward to seeing your completed final project. I am sure it will be very informative.

Best,

Emily

P.S. (Here is the link to the AMA I referenced: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xz6nb/iama_movie_theater_employee_and_ive_seen_the/)

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hey Jan – cool topic. I’ve always wondered whether/how Reddit.com confirms the identities of the folks who volunteer to do AMAs. Has there ever been a case in which someone impersonated a famous person in an ama? Perhaps caused damage to their reputation? If so how was that handled? If not, what prevents people from logging on and doing a Monica Lewinsky AMA, for example? Reddit norms?

It would be interesting to see how the anonymity of the questioners affects the tone and seriousness of their questions. It’s easier to be snarky when you’re not face to face with a person and when they don’t even they don’t know who you are. In that sense questioners can’t be help accountable for their actions. Whether or not they keep interviews professional or not.

What makes people go to r/IAmA to be interviewed? Is it that they do something interesting but not necessarily newsworthy? Or is this medium becoming competitive with real interviewers? Perhaps it has a more “grassrootsy” feel and appeals to a younger generation? Is this like citizen journalism taken to the next level? Group-citizen journalism? Does this help/hinder our media landscape? Very interesting topic!

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:55, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Eric Yuk Lun Kwong (Caelum)

Prospectus title: The vulnerable voting structure of Digg.com and the gradual
collapse of its popularity and voting legitimacy

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Caelum_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hello Eric,

An excellent topic! One I wish I had thought of.

As a long time member of Digg, I am interested to read where your study goes.

From a personal perspective, I used Digg (way back) as a resource to promote websites, and help create links and "search engine juice" in order to get more favorable Google rankings for a large network of sites that I ran. Digg was a monster in its heyday, but its collapse seemed inevitable.

The voting system could indeed be gamed, and "voters" could be bought for pennies, causing massive upheavals across the board for certain articles and categories. This of course angered long time users that took their "job" of voting articles up or down very seriously.

As a resource, you may find this Wired article useful "I Bought Votes on Digg":
http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72832?currentPage=all

This quote could help to dig further (no pun intended):

From: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/32417-niche-marketing-buy-digg-votes.html

"As I understand it, to rise up the rankings it's not necessarily the amount of votes but the quality of the people voting. (apparently diggs algorithm bases this on things such as the length of time a user has been on digg, how often they digg, the quality of the posts they dig etc). "

Good luck and look forward to reading the final paper!

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Eric,

Excellent topic. One that possesses, at once, broad-scale relevance and unusual particularities.

Exploring the reasons for Digg’s failure as a site and as a community, I’m drawn to the question regarding the members themselves.

It would be interesting to compare, if applicable, the kinds of users who are drawn to a voting-type participatory community vs. a community that actually interacts via content and contributions. If clear distinctions can be made here, to then find examples of successful communities that are voter-based and to pinpoint key policies or elements that differentiate sustainable models of voter-based communities compared to content-based contribution communities.

Perhaps it is fundamentally an issue of investment; when users and the outside world view a product as having or requiring minimal investment (as in, saying, or rather, clicking “yes” or “no” to something – voting to “dig” or “bury” a story). Are voting based sites destined to suffer from questions of legitimacy by virtue of being online and being so subjective?

That you will be making parallels to Wikipedia’s platform seems to be a good approach here. Wisely done. Thank you also, for your commentaries – I appreciate the thoroughness in which you approach these topics.

Best of luck!

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name: Alex Samaei (Samaei1)

Prospectus title: The Framework of Projects and Backers on Kickstarter

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Samaei1_Assignment2.pdf

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex!

I'm so happy you picked this website because I've donated to various projects on this website, but never took into account the structure of the website and complications due to misappropriating of funding. I find it hard to try to quantify what is appropriate to fundraise, because the topic is subjective. Of course I don't think it would be appropriate to fundraise to support hate speech (if that's what someone is fundraising for), yet I don't find it appropriate to fundraise for movies about starving children, when that money can go to feeding starving children. I hope I'm communicating the subjectiveness of trying to find what would be considered appropriate to raise money for and how it varies from person to person.

But speaking in regards to the Lessig's Dot Model I think the website can be broken down into different sections to address some of the issues you raise. For example, how does the structure of kickstarter promote accountability on the artist/person asking for money? On the donation page for example, a vast amount of information about the artist is available, as well as avenues in which you can contact the fundraiser. So if kickstarter has provided this as a requirement for people to submit or provide when asking to be funded, is it then up to the donor to hold that person accountable? I have the tools on that page to ask the fundraiser for that specific information and continue to follow up on that information. I think once you start looking at specific/deliberate aspects of kickstarter, it will start to inform or control behavior.

I hope this helps! Look forward to reading the final project; happy researching and writing!

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Alex,

I’m interested that you have chosen a community that, you imply, is being targeted not for its failures, but for its successes. A wildfire that is often so much more visible on the Internet than in any other form in history. Speed, access, and instant publicity -- make "success" in society ever more visible, open to targeting, and prone to hijacking. Indeed. It is a great topic for research in this course in particular.

One aspect that could be revelatory is to seek out the kinds of legal cases that have been brought against kickstarter and what litigation the site has to deal with and what kinds of litigation that users potentially enter into.

There’s also a question about user legitimacy. How easy is it for some startup organization to simply use this community and its platform as an elaborate marketing plan? Can a company, for instance, viel itself to be a small time kickstarter that can feed itself funding and manufacture the appearance of democratic success? It would be especially useful to identify who the moderators are and to what extent they exercise control or regulation if any. Does Kickstarter have even the skeleton of some kind of verification system or is the verification over the legitimacy of a proposal entirely user generated? Is this sustainable or are there signs of trouble ahead? What would be a disastrous scenario for this community? To these questions, I think that many clues may be found in the litigation and whatever bad publicity the community has had encounter.

Great topic, culturally relevant community. Thank you for the topic and best of luck for the final.

Best,

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

:Dear Alex,

:From your opening paragraph, I am wondering if you plan to focus on Kickstarter itself, one or more of the projects seeking support through Kickstarter, or the Reddit.com community. Each would seem to present a different community/sub-community based on the same general subject. Coverying all three could be a little broad for this size project.

:I think the issues you present are one of the more interesting subject areas of crowdfunding sites – who is the gatekeeper and how are projects screened? The authority to control and manner of control by the site owner, community, or government touches on many of our subject areas. It should be fertile ground for your project. I would plan carefully whether to go deeply into limited subject matter, or cover several subjects more broadly in the time and space you have. Either way, you have a site that should meet fit your plan.

:I wish you success, and I look forward to reading your work.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Name: Gia

Prospectus title: Chivalry online

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gia_Assignment2.docx
([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (EST))

----

Hi Gia, this is a great topic, I think the importance of this group is very high, it serves greatly to the public to prevent scams, and I wondered if the public service it provides weights in the privacy issue when it comes to the issue of finding out scams and finding information, where are the boundaries, great topic, maybe you can illustrate your topic with examples and explain how the law applies to those various kinds, great work!!!>

Edwin ([[User:Edwinduque|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (EDT))

-------
Hi Gia!

I think your concept is so interesting! Your prospectus looks pretty tight and covers all the necessary bases. My only advice is to stay focused as you elaborate on all of the interesting questions and points you raise. There are so many aspects and viewpoints you can focus on that it should be easy to find a compelling angle and focus in on it. You have enough material here to fill 20+ pages, but if you can keep it concise and “trimmed of fat”, I think you’ll have a very interesting, sharp essay. Also, with this much info, I find it helpful to keep in mind the shape of an upside down triangle, Start with all of necessary context and background info, and get more focused until the essence of what you’re saying is eventually expressed in a focused sentence or two. It’s a great way to guide the reader’s thought process to be on the same level as you by the time to you get to your claims. If you want an extra pair of eyes to run it by once you have a draft, just reach out and let me know! wesleyverge@g.harvard.edu

- Wesley

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Gia,

This topic is definitely flushing out the seedier side of the internet! I have never heard of this site 419eater, but we all know the dangers of scammers and how they use the internet. How do they find their victims? Some scams are so realistic as to mention names of loved ones in danger and demand money be expedited. The scam baiters you’re talking about here must be trolling similar sites and circles to identify culprits they need want to go after. But in doing so, are they just as much at fault as the original scammers? Is there any regulation of the members? I can definitely see an ethical dilemma, as you point out, of some possibly unscrupulous members. And your question of whether they have extended their existence outside the online world is a very interesting consideration.

You a have a lot of good sources listed regarding scams (white collar crime and Ponzi schemes too!). Good luck, this is an intriguing subject!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (EST)
----
Re: Michelle

Thanks for the comments, Michelle. I definitely intend to explore the subject from both sides, because there could be really two, maybe even more , points of view. Regarding the legal regulation, there is a lot to be said – interned jurisdiction. The self-regulation of the web community which is evolving with the time is also a nice starting point.
Thank again for the ideas and good luck to you too with your work!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----

Name: Mishal R. Kennedy

Prospectus title: Enforcing Guidelines Without Harming User Contributions

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Mishal_R._Kennedy_Assignment2.rtf
([[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (EST))
----
Hi Mishal,

The subject you have chosen is very interesting and gives great opportunities for discussions and analyses. I would directly make a reference to the Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, which we discussed during “Paradigms for Studying the Internet’ class. You could explore the methods used by the moderators and administrators as a way of self regulation of the community. The question you asked whether these methods are causing more bad than good, is right to the point.
I would suggest you explain in more details the different methods of control used my the moderators and perhaps compare them with the ones used by other communities. You could also take a look if it is explicitly listed in the Terms of Use of the website in which case what measure is taken? Is there a higher authority than the moderator to whom a sanctioned user could complain? Could such a decision “be appealed” or it is final and definitive? Is there at all a hierarchy in the administration of the website?
Here are some sources which might help. Good luck!

https://www.academia.edu/3079184/COAT_Collaborative_Outgoing_Anti-Spam_Technique
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~aktas/courses/CE-0114890/g8-p3.pdf
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kksivara/sfwr4c03/projects/4c03projects/CGLucas-Project.pdf
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2780/3296

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
-----

Name: Richard Markow

Prospectus title: The YouTube video-sharing platform & The Community of Alternative Heating Systems and Appliance Inventors

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Rich_Markow_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
:Dear Richard,

:I am most interested in how you plan to use the YouTube channel with your invention and how you will relate that effort to our project here. Do I understand that you will try to create a community within your channel, and that will be the subject community? Or, is the plan to take one of the five areas you have mentioned and focus on one or more of them? I am having a little difficulty seeing from the prospectus what your focus will be and how your invention channel will relate to the analysis.

:Your third subject sounds like an especially interesting area to me: “legal liability of user generated content related to unproven claims and inventions.” From Mentos in soda, to instructions on building who knows what, who if anyone has liability for misguided attempts to imitate these videos? Is there really anything that YouTube as an intermediary could do?

: Congratulations on your invention. I hope that you will be able to bring it to the market successfully.

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 20:38, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Hi Richard,

Congratulations for your invention and your topic is very interesting. Something that have been happening is that considering the high speed of the technology, many apps have been created to make it feasible for people to download videos from YouTube indiscriminately. YouTube has recently changed its terms and conditions to prevent apps from downloading videos to watch offline. So I would suggest you to include this issue and challenge that YouTube have been facing and how the it impacts the authors of the videos and the advertisements.

Good work!

[[User:Natasha Jalbut|njalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 18:11, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Name AlexanderH

Prospectus Title: Managing the Petitions of Change.org: B Corps, Social Enterprise and Transparency

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AlexanderH_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hey Alexander,

Great start here. I think you do an excellent job specifically identifying the different forces that are all at work on the site—it’s a user-driven, social platform, but is a corporation and is responsible to shareholders. Transparency in its operations thus becomes vital. You have a good eye for complexity, so I think you’ll have an interesting analysis. With complexity, however, can come difficulty in precision. You have a good lay of the land, but I think you might need to grapple some with what your conclusion might look like (of course, you may just not know yet, which is fine). For example, what would successful transparency look like? Great start!
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Hi Alexander,

I believe you’ve chosen a current and useful community with Change.org. Petitions are always being posted on other communities like Facebook and Reddit. That being said it is a very complex community because it contains so many different smaller communities that may support different petitions. Seeing how (or if) Change.org manages these groups equally while hopefully remaining neutral will be interesting. I would suggest narrowing your focus down to the ‘middle-man’ who oversees regulation of what is posted if that is what you’re most interested in.

Best of luck!

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hey Alexander – great topic! I didn’t realize Change.org was a B corp. Fascinating! I also didn’t realize that non-profits had to pay to put their petitions up. Isn't that interesting.

In addition to meeting a minimum threshold for support, doesn't Change.org have guiding policies on what type of petitions get published? I’ve only ever seen progressive leaning petitions but perhaps that’s because I live in my own liberal filter bubble. ;)

Why do you think a platform like this has stirred up so much activism? How much real change do you think comes from petition signing? Is this real activism or is this slacktivism? Does signing online petitions encourage more action or satisfy one’s need to feel like they’ve “done their part?” Does it even matter as long as organizations are getting the numbers they need to legitimize their purpose?

What’s the biggest success story Change.org has to offer? Biggest failure?

Also good to focus on how this site is a “community.” I believe people create profiles and you can see what categories of petitions they sign most. Do activists talk? They can post petitions to social media after signing. It would be interesting to see how people are getting trafficked to Chage.org’s petitions – is it from friends’ social media pages, organization sent emails/tweets/posts, or do people really go directly to Chage.org in search of petitions? All very interesting. Good luck!

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Meredith Blake

Prospectus Title:Identifying Avenues of Recourse for Businesses on Yelp

Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----
Hello Meredith!

I think this is a great topic and you have a very interesting approach. I haven’t really looked into Yelp and the lawsuit angle, but they certainly have a lot of influence on the internet. Out of curiosity, I just Googled about 10 different restaurants in this area and the results had the Yelp review either as the second or third site listed! So potential customers are seeing the Yelp rating almost before the actual websites in a couple of cases! There is little recourse for them, and as you show by the Sia example, a disgruntled customer can reach out and cause a flood of terrible reviews, from people who weren’t even customers! Caelum makes a good point in the summary at the bottom that reviews are either one end of the spectrum or the other… disgruntled customers wanting to air their displeasure or someone extremely happy who wants to rave about it.

It is good to take a targeted approach to such a large community, and looking into the recourse that businesses may have as well as existing lawsuits sounds like a good approach. If a suit is successful, what are the actual outcomes? Does Yelp take down reviews or adjust the ratings? I think people who expound on sites that give a platform are really missing the spirit of free speech. I don’t think your approach is that unpopular, not that free speech needs to be regulated, but that there should be some modicum of self-restraint and freedom to say anything is not absolutely protected.

Good luck on this, you’ve got some really good ideas!

Michelle

[[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (EST)
-----

Hi Meredith,

I believe you’ve chosen an interesting topic and more specifically an interesting question within the Yelp community. You mentioned the negative reviews of the dry cleaners and it’s abuse of power. I have also seen cases of people posting names of anti-LGBT restaurants being posted online and those small businesses receiving thousands of negative reviews by people who have never been customers there. These offer interesting cases because while the users leaving negative reviews might feel justified in lowering the rating of the establishment in question, it is only fair to ask if this is an abuse of power on their part. What keeps us honest? I find it difficult to think that legal action could ever be taken against someone who simply shares their story about their discrimination.

A similar scenario that I have experienced was the rebuttal from a restaurant manager. Last year I left a negative review of a restaurant after receiving service and quality I felt was poor. I was surprised when I saw a following comment was posted by the restaurant manager saying that I was incorrect and simply did not “know what good food is.” This act also seemed like an abuse of power when used in this way.

I’m very interested to see what you find about legal repercussions and if there ever have been lawsuits over similar issues. Reading the terms and conditions of users and businesses would be a good starting place.

Best of luck!
[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 15:03, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
-----

Name: Wesley Verge

Prospectus Title : Scrolling into Darkness -- An investigation into the regulatory forces at work in Youtube's comment section

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Wesley_Verge_Prospectus.txt

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (EST)

-----

Hi Wesley!

I am very intrigued by the "solutions" there are to change the culture of the comment sections. It is really an intriguing phenomenon that one could be watching a video about puppies and suddenly 4 comments down glance over an argument that Obama was sent by satan himself to destroy the world. I've always been curious as to how this has not been regulated more strictly. I think you raise great points why and the concerns Google is faced with. If I were doing this project I might also attempt to compare this to other sites as well that must face similar challenges. For example you suggest in your assignment that youtube channels direct traffic to sites like Reddit, but is that really an escape for the channel as this implies? Can these "trolls" not go over to reddit to promote their hate just as easily, or do they have different solutions in play that regulate these sorts of issues better? As far as I know both are anonymous to an extent so with this anonymity many of these trolls have "keyboard muscles" as I like to call them. I can understand twitter because many times it is much more personal but even there people can create fake accounts and troll all the same, just see Jimmy Kimmels skit on celebrity reading mean tweets.

I really like your focus on famous YouTubers I just think it may also be beneficial and worth mentioning how other sites with the same prevalent issue have tried to combat trolling. Also from a legal side, are all of these comments protected by the law and free speech? Perhaps because of the enormity of all the comments and comment sections, it is simply impossible to regulate what is said in every section from a legal perspective. Food for thought, but in any case great project idea.

Best of luck,
Ryan

[[User:Rhurls|Rhurls]] ([[User talk:Rhurls|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Prospectus Title: Knocking the Wind out of Whistleblowers: The US' response to the growing threat from WikiLeaks

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kelly.WilsonAssignment_2.docx

[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------

Hi Kelly,

Interesting topic. There are a couple of perspectives you may want to consider about when defining what you mean by Whistleblower and the response in each situation. 1) Exposing illegal acts. 2) Exposing immoral acts. 3) Exposing Acts designed to embarrassed your political opponents or as retribution.

Should they all be treated the same and afforded equal protection?

Good luck!

[[User:RMarkow|RMarkow]] ([[User talk:RMarkow|talk]]) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Hi Kelly,

This is a very interesting topic and something that I personally am not familiar with so I really look forward to reading it once it is completed. Another perspective that you could also consider in conjunction with RMarkow's suggestion would be to look at whistleblowers in light of the First Amendment. I also think that you will have more avenues to approach this topic after today’s class.
Good Luck,
[[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 13:39, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Tasha

Prospectus Title: Exploring the Complexity of Rapidly Evolving Information in a Bodybuilding Forum and the Challenges of Quality Assurance

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Tasha_Assignment_2_Prospectus.docx

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (EST)

--------
Hi Tasha,

I like a lot your choice of community . It is unusual and at the same time you could find a lot of things to explore-both from legal and ethical stand point.
I would say that your questions and reflections are on the right track. I think that one of the issues you could explore is the fact that they are often used as a platform for unlicensed sell of drugs. If you choose to go for this, you should have to take a good look on the definitions in order to differ “Drugs” for “Nutrition Supplements” because this is the tricky moment. How the website is protecting itself from such kind of activity (by its Terms of use or in other ways) , might be interesting as well.
Above you could find two links that might be of some use. Good luck!

The first is little bit old but interesting:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000525b.html

http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/unlicensed-pharmacies-selling-compounded-drugs-online

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))

----

Hi Tasha,

Excellent choice of topic and just by browsing the forums a bit I’ve noticed that is an extremely active community and it would be an interesting read to see what you make out of this. It seems that some of the questions fall in line with Lessig’s four forces (law, norms, market, and architecture) so I think that is a great place to start. I am also interested if you considered in taking a look the community’s self-regulation whether that plays a big part in exposing false information.

Best of Luck!
[[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 14:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
______

Name: Josefin Sasse

Prospectus Title: A case study on the children's website Kidzworld and how they deal with threats against being a safe environment for children.

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinSasse.pdf
[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (EST)

----

Hi Josefin!

I find your topic utterly intriguing. I had no idea such a website existed and it's been quite fascinating just poking around the website a little bit. I think it is a very valid point to raise about "who monitors Kidzworld", because there doesn't seem to be much of a screening process to ensure the user that is signing up for an account is in fact between the ages of 9-17. Also, I see you have cited the Pew Research Center study from the readings, which is a great resource for dissecting the demographics and statistics of harassment, but the study was done on "young adults" ranging from 18-29, and "young women" between the ages of 18-24 years old. Which I hope illuminates, rather than complicates, the issue of doing research on a demographic ranging from 9-17, but more so how do you set up a website that serves a population that would need adult consent to participate in almost everything they do. Along with privacy issues, I think the question of who is responsible for what and for whom is a great aspect you have raised in your paper! I would love to stay in touch and see the developments of your paper if that would be okay. I think this is the perfect website to investigate for this project.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 00:10, 5 March 2015 (EST)

--------

----

Hi Josefin,

I think you picked a great online community to explore for your final project, not only because it is a social space for a specific group, but also because there seems to be some fairly strict regulations in place to maintain a safe environment for kids.

It might be interesting if you could find some weakness in its structure. For example can kids go into private chats or are all the chats and comment sections being screened. If they are being screened, is it by a computer generated logarithm or real people?

Another question that you could delve into is, how do the site’s administrators know the users are minors. Do they require parents’ permission? If so how do they prove it is actually a real parent?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I am looking forward to seeing your finished project.

Best,
Emily

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (EST)
----

Hi Josefin

What an interesting concept. I don't know if I can even believe such a places exists on the internet. I think it’s important to make the distinction between researching the website itself and the researching the regulatory forces at work within the community. Your research questions included both, I think, and I just think for this particular assignment it’s important to emphasize the regulatory aspect a little more. We need a working knowledge on how the website runs and works, but really what regulatory forces are at play coming from the website creators, who they answer to, what the children agree to by using the site, what their parents consent to, etc, etc.
I am very interested to read more once you’ve got more down on paper! If you want an extra pair of eyes to run it by once you have a draft, just reach out and let me know! wesleyverge@g.harvard.edu

Wesley

[[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

--------

Name: Brooke Tjarks

Prospectus: Art. Business. Fans. (...) How this collaborative space shapes mass visual media production and worldwide distribution

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Prospectus.Brooke.Tjarks.pdf
--------
Hello, Tjarks!

I would definitely recommend that you stick with IMDb, since it appears that there is a lot that you could go over (your other two options seem to have fewer issues.) In your prospectus, you mention how (on IMDb) business leaders and creatives are given an incentive to pay in order to gain control their own pages, and in order to gain access to up to date contact information from fellow users. Perhaps you could do some research on the relationship that this regulation (non-paying users, who may be creatives or business leaders, do not have control over their pages) shares with the site's generativity (ability to create "unexpected content" seems more difficult to do, with this regulation in place.)

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:39PM, 10 March 2015 (EST)
--------
:Dear Brooke

:'''Creativity-Online''' does not seem to have the social element that I think the class may be looking for. I get your interest in the structural controls, especially if the structure limits the interaction to just comments from readers. Commenting is a form of ad hoc community that could be a subject all its own, but most of the random articles I looked at did not have comments.

:'''RottenTomatoes.com''' is new to me too. It seems like it is mainly aggregating reviews. So, I guess that is a community of professional reviewers. I did find that by joining you can “'''Rate movies & TV''' and see your friends' ratings, '''Get recommendations''' personalized for you, '''Join the discussion''' with other movie buffs.” I don’t know if the pros interact with the civilians here, but I suspect they read each other’s stuff. If I were writing or creating movies, this would be a place I could go to see what the ordinary folks think, right along with the reviewers.

:'''imdb.com''' may be what you’re looking for. Once you’re a member, there are some privileges, and it would appear there are some controls in place that provide fodder for the project. There is a page I ran across that states it is “Community powered support for IMDb.com" See it at <nowiki>https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics</nowiki>

:I vote for IMDb.com

:[[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----
Hello Brooke,

Rotten Tomatoes is a movie news aggregator, which uses the reviews of people who are part of a guild or association, and who have garnered sufficient likes form users. Users can write their own reviews, which get rated by other users, so there is the social dimension. Rotten Tomatoes is also tied to Flixster.com, which allows users to stream content through the Ultraviolet app (all three owned by Warner Bros.). But, as you are after a space that the industry is involved in, this may not prove to be what you are after (though of course that could depend on your question). IMDb certainly looks like it has all the elements, as Gary points out. The site is owned by Amazon, which is now a producer of content, which could be an interesting factor in the regulation of the site.

Looks like you’ll need to do some exploring, to help define a question that helps bring the project into focus. There might be something in comparing the different degrees of user input on these sites.

Good luck!

[[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

----
Name: Abby McHugh

Prospectus Title: From #Thinspiration to “Low Carb Friends”: The Regulation of Online Weight Loss Content

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Amchugh_Assignment2.docx

--------

Hi Abby!

Okay, so I really wich I had chosen this issue. It is great that you did!

To facilitate the work, I would recommend that you are more specific in which websites you are going to explore since there is so much #thinspo content out there. But Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest, and Instagram are great platforms to explore, together with blogs like you said.

'''Other things you might want to discuss are:'''

What makes the most harm: #thinspo/pro-ana blogs and posts or limitations on freedom of speech by regulating such content? (On my part, I am determined in my opinion that #thinspo is devastating and that regulation in this case is a good thing.)

Who is active in this community?

Could pro-ana be illegitimate harassment? Compare it the possibility of a pro-cancer or a pro-aids community (deadly diseases just like anorexia).

What effects could/does the sometimes lack of regulation have on the community online and offline?
Good luck! You´ve chosen a very interesting subject!

/Josefin

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 11:08, 5 March 2015 (EST)

----

Abby,
I am so impressed and dare I say jealous that you picked such an important subject for your paper. Here are a few things that come to mind as I read your plan. I hope at least one of them is helpful.
- I LOVE that you have already started a list of references. My critique for your references is to add more scholarly sources to substantiate your conclusions. For example, perhaps a database like “Mintel” or “IBISWorld” will have metrics regarding weight loss CONSUMER trends globally or in the United States. From another angle, you could find articles in scholarly psychology journals or *gasp* BOOKS in the library of a graduate psychology program. I am a student at Pepperdine, too, and I love their graduate psychology library and their electronic databases. If you want me to request anything and have it sent to you, do not hesitate to ask. And from yet another angle, perhaps we could find legal cases that relate to your topic, as well. I would be more than happy to work with you to find more sources because I just love your topic so much.
- Carbohydrates are critical for healthy brain function. Perhaps that is important in your paper, as well? Elephant in the room?
- If you decide to mention similar trends or implications of the “thinspo” trend, maybe consider body building inspiration on social media and blogs and why it is both equally obsessive but healthier.
- Another thing that concerns me about your topic is privacy. Not just the privacy of those with eating disorders, but all individuals participating in the online weight loss chatter. And also, the trend to take pictures of one’s body and put those photographs online. What are the implications of this?

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Hello, Tjarks!

I would definitely recommend that you stick with IMDB, since it appears that there is a lot you could go over (especially when compared with your other two options, which seem to have less issues to do research on.) In your prospectus (referring to the third section on IMDB), you mentioned how business leaders and creatives are given an incentive to pay in order to control their own pages, or to access up to date contact information from fellow users. Perhaps you could do some research on the relationship that this regulation (non-paying users, who may be creatives or business leaders, do not have control over their pages) shares with the community's
----

Note: If I’m a little direct in the comments, I really mean the best. Hope it doesn’t offend anyone. 

Ryan Hurley: I think professor said stay away from these huge websites. Perhaps you could discuss with the professors if Facebook is the right website to focus on?

Olivia Brinich: I think you’re asking a lot of questions to be answered here.

“How does it Pind and protect information, how do copyrighters choose to deal with the individual cases of copyright infringement, and what happens when a clip is wrongfully targeted for copyright violation, i.e., the adverse unintended consequences of Content ID?”

Perhaps you should just focus on one main thesis and explore on that. For example, focusing on how copyrighters deal with copyright infringement, and how that eventually influenced youtube to introduce copyright ID system.

One last issue is whether youtube is too big of a website to focus on. Perhaps you could narrow it down to say, copyright issues for music on youtube.

Erika L. Rich: I think it’s a very broad term to discuss the ethical considerations. Perhaps if you narrowed it down to 1 or 2 main issues you find extremely compelling about the website and community? Or maybe I have simply mistaken your train of thought.

Emily MacIntyre: I like how you had such conviction to talk about youtube that despite its size, its still worth researching about. I think you could also talk a little bit about how these game commentators earn their living by commenting on games. PewDiePie is estimated to earn millions every year. It could show a greater perspective on things if we could see their earnings as well. South Park actually has a very funny episode about commentators commenting on commentators commenting on games on youtube.

Matt K: Do you think that changing the title to reflect your research would make it easier for the reader? (Just a thought) I think its interesting how you mentioned “democratic instrument”, bringing politics into the way his blog is ran. According to the quote you took, Scalzi has indeed used some controls over potential commentators. Furthermore, you should consider that if it’s a blog about all sorts of things, with John’s comments on it, he should also be open to listen to commentators reply to this, especially if its about sensitive topics. If he’s going to filter away those he “considers” as offensive, then perhaps he shouldn’t comment on other things either. (unless the comment really does not have a valid point and is not related to the topic)

Edwin Duque: Good to see you in this class too. I think you should just focus on one website. I’d do JuryX instead of Facebook as professor said big websites aren’t good. Also, you’d need a stronger thesis to connect what the real question is. Is it about allowing free sharing? Or is it about limiting what gets shared? I’m a little confused with your thesis.

Chelly Byrne: I think you have a strong thesis here. The contradictions between sharing information on the internet, and the fear of being exposed would be very interesting. I think you can even go into the subscription process. I assume the website allows anyone to join. This means that even predators could read up on what victims write. Unfortunately, they probably get quite the entertainment from reading it, or pretending to ask “leading” questions. As you said, just a tiny bit of excessive information leaked out could result in a victim being violated again. I guess you could talk about that.

Chanel Rion: Since you’re talking about Yelp and reviews, I’d like to share what I learned from another class. Most of these reviews are at the ends of the spectrum. Unless someone is a regular of Yelp and does a review for every restaurant, the rest of them would be people who had great experiences or really bad experiences. They won’t be bothered to write a review about a mediocre or average restaurant. It’s not worth their time. You could also mention that. Also, do you think there are fake reviews too? I’d go for siteJabbar.

Becca Lewis: Firstly its interesting how you’re talking about Reddit because I’m talking about Digg. I think new beliefs takes time to be adapted by the masses. Feminism isn’t very old, and its on going. I think it takes time for people to adapt to it, so for the short term I won’t be surprised if the discussion board sees a lot of anti-feminism people. But also do bare in mind that these are “beliefs”, just like “liberalism” (which is quite similar to feminism, fighting for individual rights, etc). Not everyone believes in these values, so some disagreements should be expected. I guess an interesting way could be to examine if people become more offensive when they are shown as anonymous. My thoughts are that it is. You could look at reddit discussions compared with the core values of Wikipedia, and why it worked for Wikipedia, but a little hard for Reddit.

Gary Brown: Are there any data on the selection process, or ventures that were rejected? It’s hard to associate it with discrimination if there is no evidence. Since you can’t prove or disprove this, it means “site controls” cannot be determined. Therefore you need to make a new thesis that really reflects the paper.

Meagan Moana HoChing: DOTA is a fun game. My initial response is that with huge amounts of ego on the line, that’s how bullying start. Haha. From what I read and know, it is the architecture that is dominantly the issue. This structure allows the audience to exploit it. I think you could also investigate is how is “harassment” identified as? Calling someone a “loser”? Do note that a lot of cyber bullying are to kids that people know in real life. So can we causally say trash talking is the same as harassing? When NBA players trash talk one another, I don’t think they considered it as harassing. So I guess this definition needs to be very clear.

Caroline B: Perhaps you could mention NPOV as one of their values they used in order to keep readers like yourself going to the website.

Jan Yburan: Second Reddit I saw today. Haha. I think you need to be weary of the upvote system. More popular and famous people would get a self –fulfilling upvote treatment, where as more niche people or radical ones would get less. This way of identifying success might be a little questionable.

Alex Samaei: I’d be more interested in how kickstarter protects pledgers from potential false projects. This seems like a very good question for privacy and control.

Gia:
“New scambaiters can request to be assigned a "mentor" to assist them in learning how to bait.”

I think this is really cool.

“. In the past, scammers were tricked into sending money themselves, which was later given to charity.”

That’s crazy. Not sure who the scammer is now. I’d spend more time discussing the aspect about scammers being scammed by scambaiters, and the moral and ethical implications of it.

Mishal R. Kennedy: I think you have a legit question there. Looking at whether deleting an old post or controlling spambots to be more important. You could also consider that perhaps it was the ease of registration that led to the spambots. Deleting the old posts doesn’t actually go to the root of the problem. I guess you could also talk more about the ease of registration.

Richard Markow: I think you should just talk about 1 or 2 points out of the 5. Don’t think you have enough space to write that much.

Alexander H: Do you think you could also go into the ease of account creation? To attain legitimacy, the website would need real personal data to determine that the petition is signed by a real person. If so the privacy concerns would be the biggest. A deeper look at the terms and agreement is a must.

Meredith Blake: That’s an interesting take on Yelp. I do believe that the reviews are either from the ones who enjoyed the restaurant the most, or the ones that hated it. The ones in the middle won’t be bothered to write a review.

Wesley Verge: Personally I think it is an inevitable part of anonymity and high view count. There’s bound to be a few trolls, but that too is what makes youtube entertaining. I think youtube just needs to make a better flagging system.

Kelly Wilson: You could talk about how the internet might influence more people to be whistleblowers, or even anonymous whistleblowers.

Tasha: I think to begin with you need to bare in mind that a lot of fitness people already know the difference between science and bro-science. I further believe that bodybuilding.com would just allow people to say whatever they want knowing full well it is just a forum. As long as they don’t endorse it, they shouldn’t be liable. But as such, you should also talk about the privacy of fitness people on the website. A lot of them post photos up too, and their diet and schedules.

Josefin S: Nice logo. I don’t really like the age range for kidzworld.com. It doesn’t make sense for 9 year olds to interact with 17 year olds. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want my 9 year old kid to socialize with 17 year old kids and being taught 17 year old stuff. So my biggest concern, as you also mentioned, is how do they keep content separate between different ages to prevent the younger kids to learn the wrong stuff? Or do they not do this at all?

Brooke Ashley Tjarks: Yes, I’d agree with you that IMDB is a good balance between the other two websites. I think by becoming a member, the legitimacy of the votes would become higher. There’s bound to be some sort of influence between people regardless of the platform, so I think IMDB is an interesting one to investigate further.

----

- Brooke Tjarks here responding to Caelum -

Thank you so much for the feedback. I am defintely going with IMBD. Another interesting aspect of the platform is the accuracy of content that the website tries to uphold and the methods that they use to ensure this. For example, users with profiles who edit pages must sign legal documents online (such as NDA's) before editing. The more I thought it over the more I realized how different each of the sites I considered truly are, but IMDB has the most to offer for this assignment. Thank you again for your support.

[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

Amchugh: I think you could go into internet being free also has its consequences. Since the internet could edit and post something online in a matter of seconds, it becomes very vulnerable for unintended things to hit the net. The filtering has to either occurred before the posting, or after it has been up. When it’s up already, it’s hard to say whether the rest of them would oblige, or would they prefer to continue the troll game. You could talk about the reasons for why Twitter would take it down (assuming that it does not violate Twitter’s policies).

Note: Good luck everyone!

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hi Caelum,

Thanks for your comments. There are a lot of interesting issues, both legal and ethical and the subject is controversial for sure. Good luck with your project as well!

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (EDT))
----
Hello, Gia!

Your topic is very interesting! It appears that you have found a ton of research questions to go over! You mentioned in your prospectus how the site decided to add a new rule to its guidelines preventing members of its community from tricking scammers into sending money over to them. I think this would be an interesting issue to do some investigation on (especially on the effects that such a regulation has on the effectiveness of scambaiting - Does this make scambaiting possibly less effective? Losing money may deter some.)

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:51PM, 10 March 2015 (EST)
----
Hello, Amchugh!

The topic that you have chosen in your prospectus is very interesting, indeed! I would recommend that you investigate the relationship between the particular regulation that you mentioned in your prospectus (removing "unhealthy content") and the issue of users posting potentially harmful content on these websites. (Are these regulations doing anything to solve the problem? Or are they causing more harm to the community? Are they justified, if this is the case?)

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 4:51PM, 10 March 2015 (EST)
----

User talk:Chelly.byrne

2015-03-11T00:26:14Z

ErikaLRich: Comments about Final Paper Prospectus

You've chosen a challenging topic to write about, not just in the realm of privacy, but in subject matter.

Online communities have long been the support system for many an introvert over the years. Their importance is often overshadowed by those that think users put too much of their lives on the Internet, opening themselves up to possible crimes, bullying, and other potential misdeeds.

Sexual abuse of any type is so hard to talk about in person, that being able to hide behind a screen and share feelings and experiences without fear of being "found" is a life preserver for victims. Unfortunately, where users unknowingly reveal their identities is often a case of either not knowing how to use a forum or simply naivete.

Many people that find themselves in a community like this may be online for the very first time, trying to figure out how to deal with a traumatizing event and are often not exactly in the right frame of mind.

Of course there are no controls to figure out a users experience, so it up to the moderators to police for them, protect them from harm, and at the same time not trample on how they wish to be "heard and seen" in the support forum. It's a very fine line to tread and not for the weak of heart.

Good luck in your research and look forward to reading the results.
[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:26, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

User talk:EmiMac

2015-03-11T00:13:08Z

ErikaLRich: Comments about Final Paper Prospectus

I love any studies that have to do with Google, and especially YouTube because of the far reaching implications any sort of action in this area causes. Google is well know in my circles for causing wide-spread panic at the flick of an algorithm update switch, so finding out the exact causes of the copyright sweep would be fascinating reading.

The biggest area of concern here, for many of the people that had their videos taken down, was that it affected a lot of livelihoods. Even though users agree to YouTube's terms of services, I wonder what would have happened had any of them taken Google to court for affecting their ability to support their families? Whilst many users do it for secondary income, some do use it as a primary means of income.

Looking through the lens of our class studies would really help cement many of the discussions we've been having about freedom of speech and copyright protections.

Looking forward to reading your final paper! [[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 20:13, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T20:22:24Z

ErikaLRich: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T20:22:01Z

ErikaLRich: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T20:21:18Z

ErikaLRich: /* Comments */

File:LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 2.docx

2015-03-03T20:18:16Z

ErikaLRich: Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of an Internet Marketing Facebook Group

Reputation Management and Ethical Considerations for Members of an Internet Marketing Facebook Group

Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten

2015-02-24T20:12:33Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 24'''

The Court of Justice of the European Union made big waves last May when it ruled against Google on a claim brought by a Spanish citizen asserting a right to remove two news articles that appeared in Google search results when he searched for his own name. The case, now known as the case that recognized the “right to be forgotten,” has come to the forefront of discussions of online privacy. In today’s class, we’ll explore the “right to be forgotten,” how it applies in Europe, whether it could ever come to the United States, and how international companies address competing national balances over privacy and free speech.

We’ll also spend part of this day describing the final project for the class, and discuss how to pick a good community and issue to study for the project.

Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech.

==Readings==

* [http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten Jeffery Rosen, "The Right to Be Forgotten," 64 Stanford Law Review Online 88 (February 13, 2012)]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html Eric Posner, "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html Jonathan Zittrain, "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times, May 14, 2014]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/ Gail Sullivan, "'Right to be Forgotten' gets real as Google wipes stories from search results," July 3, 2014]

* [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion Jeffery Toobin, "The Solace of Oblivion," The New Yorker, September 29, 2014]

==Optional Readings==

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/31818 Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos] (an abridged version of the ECJ decision from May 2014 - built on the Berkman Center's own [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/p/about H2O Platform] for online textbooks)

* [https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_European_Union_and_Google_Spain Aleksandra Kuczerawy and Jef Ausloos, European Union and Google Spain] (from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98684 brand new report from the Global Network of Internet and Society centers])

* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

==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:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

I had not heard of the "right to be forgotten" before this class, so I'm a bit amazed that it exists. Before the Internet (and now) there were journals, history books, notes, law cases, family bibles, photos, TV recordings, radio recordings not to mention newspaper stories. Yes, looking people up on all of those materials is somewhat more daunting than a "Google" search, but it can be done, and it is still done by those with a dogged determination to look into people's pasts.

There are no ways to remove oneself from history books. What is a matter of public record is still public record. Why is the internet treated differently from any other form of public dissemination? Private organizations catalog and index public records in their own "search engines" most of which can also be searched online from their websites. You would spend years going after all the various resources that have a copy of that information. Sure, it would take longer as the information may not be there at the flick of a few key strokes, but it's still there.

Bottom line for me, and I embrace the Internet's power wholeheartedly for I am a distance student after all, is that I find it ridiculously naive to think that if you win a case getting Google to remove a link, that now no one can ever find that bad information about you and suddenly you are pure. I also do not like this law as now you can play havoc with History. What we do today reflects on us 100 years from now. Did it happen? Or did it not?

[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Andy, could you please look over the microphones in the classroom? I had a really hard time hearing what was said in class last week. There was no problem with hearing the people closest to the camera, but those further away (including Mr. Faris) were really difficult to hear. :) [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 06:38, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

:Thanks for the heads up, Josefin. I think we were having some problems with Rob's mic, and I'll tell folks in class to speak up to make sure the table mics pick up the sound. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 08:09, 19 February 2015 (EST)

----

I have a hard time deciding wether I like the ”right to be forgotten law” or not. It can be a good thing when it comes to giving people a second chance in life or preventing false rumors from destroing peoples lives. But it could at the same time undermine the freedom of speech, which is a very important important element in a democracy.

Also, three reasons for search results to be removed are that they are ”inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”, which is very subjective. Who should have the power to decide what is irrelevant and what is important information to the public? And what if information that is irrelevant today unexpectedly happens to be relevant in a few years?

I was surprised to know that ”Google has fielded about a hundred and twenty thousand requests for deletions and granted roughly half of them.”, because I haven´t heard about this law since last spring and didn´t reflect upon the fact that a lot of people could´ve used this ”right to be forgotten”. I wonder what kind of people that use it, why they do it, etc. Is it to be able to move on from previous mistakes? Is it to hide things about themselves to be able to defraud others? Whatever you think is right (to implement this right or not) there are several approaches on this matter that are relevant. It is important that we discuss these issues now, when more and more information can be found on the Internet. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has embarrassing photos on Facebook and wished to delete them. Some of them were posted by myself and later realized how idiotic they were; some were then copied from mine and reposted by my friends; and ofcourse, some were taken by my friends of me doing embarrassing things. This is precisely what we fear, and the sensitive issue about privacy in the internet world.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly constitutes the internet? Freedom to post everything and share everything without restrictions? But the other issue is the problem about privacy. It is hard to have a completely free society on the internet if there are restrictions here and there. So where should privacy start? Should it be based upon the existing privacy laws in real life? I guess since we do live in the physical world, some of it have to derive from the real world. “The right to be forgotten” is precisely that. It governs the areas in Europe to have those rights. (Ref 1 and 2) From paragraph one I mentioned the three things that were questionable. Under the right to be forgotten law, Europeans could demand to have their data deleted regardless if it was posted by them, redistributed, or taken by someone else.

Google tried a different approach of allowing users to comment on searches of you. (ref 3) but against such tough regulations on privacy, I’m not surprised that Google abandoned it soon after. I believe they do not have aligned interests with regulators. Search engines should be pro- openness, pro-free data, anti-regulations. But such is difficult when the internet is actually possible to be governed by geographical location (as we learned previously). “The right to be forgotten” has really forced Google and other search engines to remove certain results from some searches. (ref 4) It goes into the territory of whether they would be reliable for keeping certain data online. I think Toobin’s story proved a very valid point. The way Nikki Catsouras was decapitated was gruesome, and the employees of the California Highway Patrol should not have spread the photos. (ref 5) It should be kept professional. When issues like this occur, it really brings us back to the privacy issue. Is it better to have an open internet where everything is available? Or is it better to control the internet with certain privacy settings? It seems that this topic would continue for a while.

I think “the right to be forgotten” comes in handy when it needs to be used, but also restricts true freedom of sharing data. When the internet first started and everyone thought it would not be under the jurisdiction of governments were very wrong. It was not only geographically controlled, not only digitally but physically (wires and cables), it was also controlled by means of “rights”, such as privacy. I could see issues with and without “the Right to Be Forgotten”. Both sides of the argument seems valid. Yet I do think the digital world reflects the physical one more than the other way round. So for the time being, I believe it benefits society more with these privacy settings than it harms us.

'''References:'''

Ref 1 - http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten

Ref 2 - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_european_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.single.html

Ref 3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force-google-to-forget.html?_r=0

Ref 4 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/03/google-erases-unflattering-news-stories-because-of-right-to-be-forgotten-is-this-like-burning-books-in-a-library/

Ref 5 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

The discussion about the balance between "the right to be forgotten" and free speech is another difficult perspective to the privacy debate and reiterates that it's extremely hard to define and, therefore, to make boundaries. I appreciate how the articles provided a variety of perspectives both for and against the right to be forgotten which allowed for some valuable insights. It seems as though coming up with an overall policy to allow people the right to be forgotten is practically impossible because of the variety of situations which cause people to want to practice that principle. It seems that the main argument for the right to be forgotten is that, "we didn't use to have immediate access to people's pasts and things were just fine back then, why do we have to change it?". The important fact they're leaving out is that the playing field is completely different now so the old rules won't work. We're dealing with a completely different situation, in that, even if there were regulation, things are STILL so much easier to find and unless the Internet is completely destroyed, that's not going to change. Like in Germany, someone can just as easily log in to google.com instead of google.de and turn up the unfiltered search results. The legislation can only hold for the EU, and unless they want to be like China and censor access to outside websites, they will have to accept that they can't control information in the way they feel they need to. That may be unfortunate for some people, but it's the bad that comes with the good. We can't choose to have an amazing resource of information which causes billions of people access to education, communication, work, travel, etc., and then say, "oh, but we only want the good stuff". Life doesn't work like that, and the internet certainly isn't an exception. [[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 21:49, 22 February 2015 (EST)

----

In the context of human rights, the right to be forgotten is akin the right to be left alone. Also similar to the right to be protected from unlawful searches in the home, and the right to peaceful enjoyment of a dwelling in the context of housing law. All this talk of free speech being under assault is a lot of hyperventilating, mostly espoused by those who think corporations have a right to collect any information from anybody at any time in the pursuit of profit. Sorry, those click disclosures on every internet transaction don’t count as full disclosure, and have been proven in court in many occasions to be insufficient. The reason being that those disclosures act as a one sided negotiation – either you accept the terms of the purchase, including sharing the information with third parties or you don’t get to make X-mas purchases on line. That’s an unfair contract.

The internet is finally bumping against its limits on free information and privacy. In fact, there are already laws protecting individuals from bullying on line and online breaches of bank accounts and financial information. So, if the rights of corporations and individuals are protected from libel and defamation, why shouldn’t individuals receive the same protection if they are private citizens? The problem in the U.S. is that profits trump everything else including free speech, in fact, they already censor blogs and social websites. Furthermore, the U.S. government has a free run to retrieve whatever information it wants from any individual living in the U.S., citizen or not.

Asking Goggle to delete records under the current guidelines established in the European Union is the least that can be asked of Google and other search engines in the U.S. as well as Face book and other social networks. Those who clamor for freedom of speech are forgetting that privacy does not exists any more, it is merely an illusion. Unless an individual takes complete control of his or her information, one cannot expect anyone in the U.S. to respect his or her privacy. The internet is heading into uncharted waters with this privacy issue and the right to be forgotten. Expect them to be barraged with thousands of law suits from individuals with criminal records who long after serving their sentences will still be haunted by their criminal past, from private citizens who have been victims of bullying and crimes on line and about a hundred other reasons I cannot enumerate on this blog.[[User:Hromero10|Hromero10]] ([[User talk:Hromero10|talk]]) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello All!

As I contemplate “the right to be forgotten” on the internet I like to consider how these scenarios would have played out before the internet existed and try to apply a similar logic to our current situation.

In the past, if libelous information was published in a newspaper, the paper’s recourse would be to publish a retraction. However they could not ask for all their subscribers to destroy their copies. Consequently, in some circumstances the plaintiff could be awarded compensation for these damages.

Keeping this in mind, while I do believe libelous defamatory statements should be removable on the internet, I do not think it is wise to condone the removal of truthful statements and images from the internet because it would erase an accurate history and replace it with a false one.

Ironically, I suppose allowances such as these would benefit future historians, since it would validate their purpose, as they would have to not trust their initial findings through online searches. Instead, they would have to search for truthful information in more obscure locations.

Just as today’s historians need to look at primary sources including personal journals, I imagine historians of the future will be in search of the personal hard drives of the famous figures of our era.

-Emily MacIntyre

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (EST)

----

What we all fight for is to accomplish something in life in order to be remembered, with our achievements, creations, contributions to the society. At the same time we are fighting for staying in world’s collective memory, many of us are craving for a fresh start, for an opportunity for a second chance. The European union’s response is the proclaiming of the “right to be forgotten”. EU is motivating this newly established right with the need of protection of privacy. Jeffrey Rosen is saying “the right to be forgotten addresses an urgent problem in the digital age: it is very hard to escape your past on the Internet ” which shows exactly that people are projecting this issue just in the online world. I think that we should not limit our reflections on the subject by transposing this right only to the digital environment. Eric Posner says “ Once information is online, it can be forever instantly accessible through search engines. No need to dig through archives or court records for the record of Costeja’s debt”. This clearly shows that Internet is not the problem, it is not the net which is menacing the right of privacy , it just makes things faster. The information would still exist on paper based records just it would not be so easily accessible. I find it rather unfair to blame Internet for just speeding up the process of search.

At the beginning I was very controversial about whether I am more a supporter of the European thesis regarding the issue or the American one. On one hand a situation like one described at the beginning of “the Solace of oblivion” by Jeffrey Toobin is really something we all would like to prevent as horrible and unjust. On the other hand, the demand of the two German killers demanding anonymity and suing Wikipedia’s, I find equally unjust.

I think there are really different aspects of this “right to be forgotten” which are still not well defined and speared neither by the legislation nor by the jurisprudence. I very much like the three categories of this right as described by Peter Fleischer. When it is about a personal information disclosed by someone, this person should be the one able to take it out of the public space the same way he put it there – the first category. But once this information, fact or action, has affected and interacted with the existence of someone else, it has become part of his “world” already , as I believe is the case with the German killers. We should be mastering our own lives but not those of other people and if through our actions we had become in someway part of someone else’s existence it would be unfair to dispose of his life as well. There are many dark periods in human’s history but it does not mean we should erase the names of the villains out of it.

The desire for a clean start, where no one would know about crazy parties we had as teenagers or personal tragedies , is a tempting option for everyone but I consider it first of all, impossible for execution and second I do not agree it is right to be claimed. Even if we make filter in search engines and ban certain websites, we would just use the technological capacity of the net to restrict the information in it but what we are supposed to do with books and newspapers? Does it mean we should burn them all if we found in them such kind of violation of the right to be forgotten or it is not the same just because they could be found only in libraries but not in Google ?

Second, in our lives we make choices every day, some of them turn out to be more important than others but these choices are defining us and make us what we are and we should be ready to face the consequences of each and every one of them otherwise it is cheating. And to the question that some people ask, whether we are supposed to bear the consequences. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 06:01, 24 February 2015 (EST))

----

'''Neuralizers for All'''

The Slate article by Eric Posner made an imperative distinction in the discourse of Privacy and the Right to be Forgotten; that is, personal information is trickier to control in this day and age not because it cannot be erased, but simply because the Internet makes it easier to access.

A cogent commentary on the state of our society, the zeitgeist of our evolving understandings of what is “personal” and what is “public.” A commentary on what we are accepting as reality and perception – about ourselves. And down into the Carrolian Rabbit hole we go, falling, falling, falling – the machine, the world that we have created within these machines and within this network of machines is now fashioning us into things we are not; with the capacity to put information out there selectively, recklesslessly, ignorantly, and consciously, we are increasingly aware and sensitive to this notion of designing who we are and how we are perceived – and when embarrassing or private details about ourselves begin to create this digital narrative of who we are, our instant reaction is to press some buttons to change people’s perceptions about us –- be they true or not.

This fear of the Internet and the parts of it we cannot control is a perfect example of how man has finally created a mirror of himself that is haunting him more and more; he has created a creature, amorphous and ungraspable, that has the power to make perception reality. And make us believe that what everyone sees online is what everyone will believe.

I continue to return to the Solove article from two classes back on the confusion of what it is to have private information and what, exactly, privacy means now – if it ever had a meaning to begin with. A chilling idea that such a treasured notion can be so confused, interpreted and misinterpreted, and, even, abused, as in the case of the German murderers suing Wiki to have their names removed from an article. But even if our notions of privacy is as treasured to us as it is confusing, we still cannot allow our personal follies to reinvent what is true. Again, returning to the Posner article; it’s not that this information or facts about ourselves are “erased” – rather, it is simply made harder to access by the general world.

Gia, the poster on this board just before me made a rather wonderful summation of the situation in which we wish to extract information about ourselves even after it has come into possession of another individual. And yes, Gia, I agree with you in the particular way that you phrased it: that once information has been released by ourselves and becomes part of someone else’s “world” it is now of this world and it is no longer our clear and divine right to remove such information. By no means do I agree with the idea that our information is free and usable by all -- my information is my currency, it’s worth a lot to me and I will jealously guard it as best I can even if I know that for the most part it is a losing battle especially in the US. The EU is on the right track in putting this concern for protecting the individual on the table but it has yet to iron out the practicalities of what is enforceable, what is true to free speech and what is true to the act of recording history.

Tbe EU’s Right to be Forgotten movement seems to believe that we all have the individual right to pull out a Neuralizer – that gun from Men in Black otherwise known as the “memory eraser” – whether the memory is fact or fiction, we have the right to manipulate this certain virtual space to a reality that we are most “comfortable” with.

I’m finding myself more and more in the camp of regulation starts with yourself; if you post it it was your decision; if you acted that way, that was also your decision. In this Internet, smartphone, cameras everywhere age, I think it is more a matter of us changing our perception of our environment so that it has caught up with the modern age; we still somehow believe that we are living in the 19th century regarding what we believe we can get away with. The Internet has brought wonders to our world; but it has also brought this new world where we must always be more conscious about our actions; everyone has a camera, everyone has a blog, and, we are also humans – everyone makes mistakes. The lines where I see potential protection and hope in this grim and overexposed world is in the world of copyright (as Nikki Catsouras’ family attempted to approach it through) where you can order someone to take down an image, video, or recording that actually belongs to you, and in the legal worlds of defamation, false light, and appropriation.

To me, it is within these realms that there is hope to morally correct false or morally remove true information from public access. The other options currently visible on the table are just different iterations of a rather dangerous-looking Memory Erasing Gun.

Chanel Rion

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 09:38, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

'The Right to be Forgotten' is one of the first big battles of internet privacy in our modern age. I found it interesting that the European Union took such a drastically different approach than the United States in these first steps. However I would like to start by saying that I believe in time these differences will converge into a larger global format, simply due to the fact that the internet has helped lead to globalization in everything it has touched and this would be difficult to retract.

While the E.U. used broad terms that may scare some, personally I agree with the logic of 'staying ahead of the curve.' If we just look at how significantly the internet has changed in the past 10 years with the introduction of smartphones we can only be so accurate in our predictions of what the internet will be like in another 10 or even 20 years. Laws take so long to be drafted, adapted and perfected that any strict policy of this complexity would be out of date soon after it's implementation. That's why I understand the want to use broad terms, but this also leads to the risk of leaving many decisions in the hands of people or groups who maybe shouldn't have that level of control. While Google doesn't want this responsibility of managing screenings, it's business has shifted into one that requires it. If they are not able to properly adapt then they too can be replaced by another company who can. So as a business that wants to be the central information source for it's users, logic says they will adapt.

On the other hand the idea that this specific censorship could be misused to hide information from being easily accessed is a scary thought. One of the reasons the internet is so popular and is quickly changing the way the world thinks and acts is the ease of access to all human knowledge. This may seem extreme but if we put limits on what can be found via the internet we start to change what the internet is, an open network of communication and information exchange.

In the end I believe that neither of these solutions are ideal. What I found the most interesting in these readings was that Google used to allow users to comment on GoogleNews articles about themselves. This seems like a brilliant way to allow any individual to make a sound argument defending themselves or explaining their circumstances. This method wouldn't limit anyone searching the user in question from finding any information. While this may not be an all-encompassing solution I believe it is the closest towards what we can implement quickly and make adaptable for future technologies.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

To say honestly, I have never heard of this rule and I am not one supporting it. I believe the information we find when Googling our name (or the name of another) is valuable information about that person. If a mistake was made early in the 20's for example, having that information available on the Internet is the price one must pay. If every 'bad' or not so good article/photo/event was erased, that is not only taking away freedom of spech as my classmates mentioned above, but it is also hiding information to future bosses, schools, etc. You cannot erase a mistake in your life by simply erasing an article on Google. As a citizen, we all have the ability and right to know about others if we so please. I look forward to discussion tonight as I imagine (from reading comments above) that this is a very topic many agree with but also many disagree with. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
Posner (2014) supports the idea that we all have the “right to be forgotten”. Europe is ahead of the United States in this area Posner compared the United States with Europe and indicated that America is rigid and ideological while Europe is pragmatic and flexible. Examples were provided of a man asking Google to remove data about him that linked to another website. It is believed that the old and embarrassing troubles living forever online is one that our laws do not address yet. Old information can be pulled up at any time on anyone via the internet. While I have conflicting viewpoints on “right to be forgotten”, my perspective leans towards the outlook that individuals have the right to request personal data removed from search engines.

As someone highly connected to the fitness industry, many aspiring athletes and models are photographed for promotional purposes or personal gain in attire and positions that usually are regrettable in the future. While an athlete may take a harmless photo in a bikini, it is not unusual for those photographs to copied and used on websites and forums that do not match the moral compass of the athlete. So while, it was their discretion to have their photo taken, the integrity of the person can be compromised as the name and photograph are now searchable and connected to a third-party. I am in agreement with someone’s right to have data removed. According to Zittrain (2014), European court decided Google “must forget”. Google can be demanded to remove certain reputation-harming search results that is accessed by one’s name. Zittrain (2014) continues to report that protecting an individual’s reputation is protected is important and a policy matter that must be legislated by the court which is mismatched to the evolving intricacies of the online world.

As there continues to be ongoing conflict about protection of the freedom of speech and privacy, I read a great article by ENISA, European Union Agency for Network and Information Security Agency, which address concerns about the expectations and practice of the right to be forgotten, which can be found here: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/the-right-to-be-forgotten/at_download/fullReport

References:

Posner, E. (2014). "We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate.

Zittrain, J. (2014). "Don't Force Google to 'Forget'," New York Times.

Tasha[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----

Hello, everyone.
Looking forward to tonight's class and discussion.
There's a few things I'd like to encourage everyone to think about in the larger context of the ruling and its consequences.
First is the issue of Google (or other search engines) notifying affected sites of the removal of one or more of their links in Search results. I.e. Google tells the Guardian that in response to an RTBF request, Google has removed a Guardian link from certain search results.
How do you feel about this and why?

Second, consider the role of contextualization. This is legal activity being acted on in legal ways, but the result created may be forbidden by law. No one is saying that newspapers cannot publish articles or have archives, and no one is saying that search engines cannot exist or that they cannot aggregate material to present in results. and yet...
We have emergent meaning and cultural/legal significance based solely on contextualization of information. What are the long-term implications of this? To what extent is this a culture clash, and to what extent might it be a new defining feature of he digitization of information? For some reason I am reminded of Greg Egan's 1992 story "Dust".

Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?
[[User:Aholland|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)

----
This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.
I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.
Leaving the Internet the way it is now, free and open, will hold individuals accountable for what they do, especially in domains such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. If the consideration were based off false accounts or information, which was untrue, the case would be a matter of libel or defamation of character. The freedom of the internet holds users accountable and will force them to consider where and what they take part in before the actually commit any actions.
Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”
[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T18:48:16Z

ErikaLRich: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

=Submission Instructions=

'''This section of the website is crawled by search engines. If you do not want your name to appear in a search connected with your writing, use your class wiki username as a pseudonym.'''

''Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment.''

Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 10, 5:30pm ET).

Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. After you upload your file, please post a link to it in the "Submissions" section below in the following format:

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]

=Submissions=
Please post your link to your report below:

ErikaLRich

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairsville,_Georgia

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU_E120_Erika_Rich_Assignment_1.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JosefinS

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_High_School_(Hillsboro,_Oregon)

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:JosefinS_Assignment1.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ChanelRion

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stratemeyer#Death

Rion Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:WikipediaReport_Assignment_1_RION.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Borek

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Borek.docx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edwin Duque Edwinduque Elduquews

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_law

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.doc

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Emily MacIntyre

• Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetinghouse_Common_District

• Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MacIntyre_Emily_Assignment_1.pdf

---------
Samaei1

Rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Justice#In_other_media

Report:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_Samaei1.pdf

-----
Mhoching

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Baker_Sesh_Up

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1.docx

File:LSTU E120 Erika Rich Assignment 1.docx

2015-02-10T18:44:24Z

ErikaLRich: Wikipedia Verifiability Rule Example

Wikipedia Verifiability Rule Example

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-02-03T22:06:27Z

ErikaLRich: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 27'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Internet has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber- terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation ("Assignment Zero") ==

Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

* [https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

:* You can hear Barlow read this [http://departmentofrecords.co/dor1.html here].

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [https://medium.com/@internetmonitor/platforms-and-policy-e9984e1be4c6 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Platforms and Policy] (from the [http://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ 'Internet Monitor' 2014 annual report])

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto); and [http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ New Clues]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/12/05/good-and-bad-reasons-to-be-worried-about-wcit/ Ethan Zuckerman, Good and Bad Reasons to be Worried About WCIT]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links From Adobe Connect Session ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! You can add a divider between comments by typing four hyphens (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) in an empty line between comments. '''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]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)</div>

----
One of the more significant social and economic changes that I have not only experienced but seen, is the ability to find things out instantly. Whether it be news or education, sports or politics, we now have the ability to informed immediately about anything and everything. This is both a blessing and a curse.[[User:ErikaLRich|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich|talk]]) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (EST)
----
The most significant social change resulting from the spread of the Internet is simply the opportunity for the average person (whoever that may be) to establish two way connections with people, businesses, information, and governments around the world in other than a physical environment. Having two way communication, even if indirectly, is empowerment. I grew up in a world of listeners and watchers, from newspapers, to magazines, radio, broadcast television, and brochures. The Internet has given us a world filled with conversation.

The most significant economic change is online sales of goods and services. I can buy just about anything on the Internet and never leave my home, my office, or the beach. I can’t imagine where I would have to physically go to buy, or how I would even locate, a 2 kilogram box of Scharfenberger cocoa without the Internet. I just would not take the time to locate it, and for that reason I would not buy it. More to the point, it would not be sold.

Culturally, email is the big change. Of course, instant messaging and social media are gaining ground, but it was email that changed our culture to the right now work and personal environments, even before it was being delivered on the cell phone. Wait, maybe the cell phone is a bigger change. [[User:Gary Brown|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown|talk]]) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
There is some fascinating discussion taking place “below the line.” It makes me excited for this semester. To my mind, the internet and associated digital technologies remain the most influential invention of our time. They have been the facilitator of countless zeitgeists including the crumbling of oppressive kingdoms and the exploration of alternative currencies, as well as the breeding ground for unique forms of intellectual and social collaboration- be they twitter, Jstor journals, or your average online message board. This interconnectivity is, of course, not without its side-effects. While the relationship between various exchange and interest rates pre-dates the proliferation of the internet, I feel that such technologies have allowed the more unsavory characteristics of these economic relationships to be felt much more acutely by the average person.[[User:Jmerryma0287|Jmerryma0287]] ([[User talk:Jmerryma0287|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:33, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

Digital technologies have changes many aspects of life and society. One example is the fact that I can participate in this class even though I live in Europe. That is just one example of how digital technologies have played a huge part in globalization. Even though I live in Sweden, I can still study at an American university, easily stay in touch with my best friend who lives in Missouri, I can follow the life of a stranger in Australia through his or her blog, and I can connect and share my thoughts with other people who think like me but who live in other parts of the world. As a young person of today, I do not only identify myself as a citizen of a particular city, but also as European or as a ”global citizen”.

What is also important to reflect on is how we can influence and affect others through the Internet and digital media. (And of course how we are influenced and affected by others.) One out of many possible examples on this matter is blogs. I use the Swedish blog ''blondinbella.se'' as my example. ”Blondinbella” is one of the most popular blogs in Sweden with over 1 million unique readers each week. Sweden a country with only about 10 million citizens, and that one blog reach more people than many newspapers do is very interesting and worth reflecting about. [[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

I completely agree with what Josefin said above. The generation that is now entering adulthood is inheriting a much smaller, more connected world than their parents did.
I think it's important to reflect on the possible downsides of the ever increasing invasiveness of the internet. We are a generation that can ask Siri how badly the Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Superbowl — and she’ll tell us almost immediately that the Patriots won in a landslide. Or what song is playing on the radio. Or what the largest star in the Milky Way is. Or if Pixar is ever going to make a sequel to the Incredibles (they are, finally). You get the point. We are used to being able to find out almost anything, almost anywhere, at almost anytime.
There may be a subtle danger in adapting an entire generation to instant gratification. As we put more and more of our lives into our phones and computers, we stop relying on our own mental faculties. For example, my grandfather has a razor sharp memory, and he knows all the phone numbers of our immediate and extended family by heart. If I lost my phone, I might remember my mom’s number, but my whole contact book would be lost if it wasn't for iCloud. I’m certainly not exercising my memory on a daily basis to make calls like my grandfather. Will that hurt me in the long run? Probably not — but it’s an interesting thought.

Another aspect of the internet that I sometimes reflect on is its contribution to political close-mindedness here in the US, if not the world over. I worked for a long time in DC, and have friends and family all over the political spectrum — even a tea party uncle in Texas, and I can say with certainty that I’ve witnessed a trend where my highly conservative friends will follow and subscribe to conservative news sources or blogs that produce news that corresponds with their pre-existing beliefs, and like-wise for my liberal friends. Constant exposure to “news” written or spun to enforce and vindicate your beliefs serves to cement your views, and lessens the amount of meaningful debate that takes place. I would say this definitely serves to further polarize the political climate here in the US. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, all have large followings of people who watch their shows, listen to their radio stations, and subscribe to their social media outlets. The political influence of these individuals can, in some cases, easily shape the political landscape more than many politicians do. Interesting to consider. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)

----

Wesley Verge. The polarization of American Politics on the internet reflects popular attitudes, and at times exacerbate the problem. I think the problem has to do with journalistic standards. Remember those? They used to exist up until about the 1990's, or more precisely, since Rupert Murdoch bought Fox News -- and that's when the bar was lowered for everyone. With such a wide reach, high profits, and such obvious bias on all the publications under his ownership, journalistic standards went out the window in the pursuit of sensationalism and profit margin. And sadly, those who didn't adapt to this new way of selling news were left behind. The Philadelphia Inquirer comes to mind, but R. Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal is another good example. U.S. Politics have been in a sad state of affairs since G.W decided to invade Iraq, and the rancor and indignation that followed those years has still to subside. There are other factors that affect the current state of politics in the U.S, and two of those are geography and the diversity of demographics throughout the country. Notice that there isn't really a traditional democratic and republican party? Despite the fact that the two party system is still dominant in voting patterns, there are many factions within those two large groups. Hromero [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)

----
Hromero. You make valid points, though I would point out that they differ slightly from the point I was trying to make. To elaborate a little further, I was speaking only of how the internet plays a large role in exacerbating the political polarization of the country. You correctly point out that the shift in media tactics marked a shift towards increased polarization. I'm saying that the internet provides access to sensationalist news and propaganda, on both sides of the spectrum, to anyone with a connection or a smart phone. People no longer have to be challenged in their thinking. If the President says "yadayadayada", rather than reflect upon and come to consensus, people are bombarded with sound bites that penetrate the public sphere and shape political thought. New ideas never have the chance to take root, because they are razed quite immediately after inception. Of course, talking head pundits are nothing new, but at least years ago families could discuss news together over dinner, waiting to read the paper or see the news the next day. Now, The President says "yadayadayada" at 6pm, and John Boehner is able to issue a responsive speech at 8pm through twitter or youtube. You're right to point out the increased splintering of the parties, but where that meets the internet is now each of those factions has methods to connect to their support bases, issue videos, etc on a constant and consistent basis -- a change that surely helps to solidify and expand their support, further polarizing the country. I think its important that we focus on how the internet is used in correlation to politics, rather than focus on the people doing the using and whether or not we agree with them. It keeps discussion more clear and concise. [[User:WesleyVerge|WesleyVerge]] ([[User talk:WesleyVerge|talk]]) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The evolution of the internet and our digital technologies has changed how we look at society and how we participate in it. For example social outlets such as Facebook and Twitter allows us to express any thought or feeling and connect with people all over the world. This gives us the ability to form connections and relationships with people that would not have been possible otherwise. With the internet always evolving information has become more and more accessible. Anything that we can imagine we can find through the Internet whether that be current events, a movie review, or personal information just to name a few. Search engines and online encyclopedias such as Google and Wikipedia have changed how we learn and search for information. Furthermore the internet has changed the way we do business . Now we are able to purchase products through websites like Amazon and any other retail site. We also can conduct business through the internet through trading which adds a new dimension to the business world. Our advancements in the internet and digital technologies added another wrinkle in how we view information and the economy as well as many other areas. [[User:Jan.Yburan|Jan.Yburan]] ([[User talk:Jan.Yburan|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

As a distance student, participation has been possible in many HED classes with students world wide from Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Indonesia, and Australia as well as the United States. The advantages the internet and exponential expansion of digital constantly creates awe in realizing what has become possible in a relatively short period of time.

It is possible to access historical and current information from the Internet from each of the categories listed above almost instantaneously whether it be cultural, political or economic or social. The online Wikipedia information saves gong to the library or an encyclopedia with each query…..which in the case of the library has advantages as well as disadvantages. For lovers of books, there is nothing like thumbing through the pages of a book….and reading the first and last chapter while standing in front of a bookshelf.

Shopping - it is possible to view the price and merchandise of a particular brand or manufacturer with a few keystrokes. A person can shop locally or nationwide or overseas for particular items. [[User:Rgrasser|Rgrasser]]

----

I like many of the posts above, and I think they're on the mark. My first thought on changes ushered in has to do with Wesley's comments on instant gratification - we can access information and purchase goods instantaneously, but being connected means we are always on-call. A text/SMS comes to our phones on our bodies, we don't want to be behind on emails or miss a post on Facebook, etc. The new, immediate connectedness of the turn of the century, it seems to me, is significantly notable, both in our ability to connect and the possibility of always being connected to.

This new connection brings me to my second thought, the new possibilities of surveillance. Typically conversation focuses on government censorship and the ability to monitor for unwanted speech. I would add that our new, ongoing connectedness also provides an increasingly continuous history of our identities. This history can be used to market specific products, tailor our searches, and generally show us content that will keep us connected more often. To be connected means to be watched, sometimes directly, sometimes passively. Many have written on how this leads us to begin policing ourselves.

This self-policing brings me to third major development I see, which also has much to do with Wesley's thoughts on how his friends' political views are continually fed. A variety of technologies now exist to keep us more within our preconceptions than before. Our identity and self-understanding is produced and maintained in a different and more controlled way in the past. It doesn't seem to me that there is (necessarily) a (wo)man behind the curtain, but the implementation and effect of these technologies remain the same.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

Internet access has changed the way information flows while increasing social and economic participation. As internet and digital technology continues to develop, it has changed the nature of how organizations market themselves to targeted their targeted consumers. Traditional methods of newspaper/magazine advertisements and email listservs no longer are the primary avenue of increasing consumer engagement. Social media platforms have expanded consumer outreach as companies use Twitter to tweet to their customers and smartphone apps to keep their consumers connected. This connectectivity has impacted the roles of employees as many of their job descriptions are now requiring evidence of technological competencies.

The internet and technologies has allowed the progression of global connectivity by creating meaningful experiences through intentional dialogue and engagement. Internet and digital technologies allows for access to consumer services previously limited due to geographic location. Historically, a fitness coach was someone typically found within your local community or an athlete was required to travel to the gym/sports facility. With the expansion of technology, people now have access to some of the best coaching in the world through the use of current technologies. As an example, I am now a posing coach for athletes throughout the USA, Canada and the UK.

People are now able to engage in a global experience without crossing international borders. [[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 18:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)

----

While reflecting on the Internet and the significant changes it has spread, I ironically type and post the following comments while flying on an airplane. Who would have imagined using internet on a plane 20 years ago? Yet, walking through the airport before boarding my flight I could see the changes the Internet and digital technologies has had on our society: customers ordering food via an iPad in the airport cafe; an older couple Skyping, what looked like their grandson, on a laptop; teenagers idly staring at their smart phones while their parents talk at them; the many airline passenger who boarded their flights by merely pulling up an image on their iPhones. Internet and digital technologies are everywhere...and it has changed every aspect of our lives.

The most significant of those changes I find is the globalized world we now live in. Post World War II, the international community entered an era of connectedness, and the Internet has only exacerbated this connectedness. The ability to share, like, post, tweet, retweet, reblog, blog, etc. has birthed a generation of globally connected citizens. It only takes a couple of clicks on Twitter to see or read about happenings half way around the world - in real time. This environment has created a more involved international community, especially when reviewing Twitter trending topics, for instance the events that happened in Ferguson, MO last year. Massive marches, stand ins, protests and rallies were organized across the globe - orchestrated primarily on social media.

Furthermore, the possibilities of outreach and global awareness is boundless. Internet and digital technologies now offer a tool for social good.
A recent article [http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457289/facebook-launches-bid-to-bring-cheap-internet-to-the-developing-world] discussed how internet has become vital to survival for those living in the poorest of countries. Facebook, for example, launched a program with efforts to bring internet to lower income countries or rural areas who need the assistance with technology to better living conditions. The implementation of these technologies are ongoing, and it is unclear if they are helping more than they are hurting, but the social change of internet is here to stay.

[[User:Mhoching|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching|talk]]) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Ok, speaking of internet morons, this is the third time I’m posting and I still don’t see it. Any tech has any hints as to why this is happening, I’m making a copy of this in a separate doc, please tell me where to send it.
My comment is as follows: 1) Since the advent of the internet people are interacting with devices and technology more often than they used to and as a result there have been some measurable changes in children’s cognitive development. I will find the resource later on. I think it also affects adults, especially those who are already predisposed to HDHD. 2) since it is very hard to tell when you’re blogging whether you’re speaking to only three people or three thousand, the power of bloggers should be taken with a generous dose of skepticism. 30 Innovation does not necessarily make us more effective, it merely makes us busier. Exhibit A: Facebook (A complete waste of time, and a truly distracting way of communicating with other people. Absolutely hate it.) Hromero[[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (EST)

----

Reflecting how the world has changed in the last few years is impressive, many things that could not be dreamed to be done in any other way that would have been physical, now in our current times, are possible.

Socially, the interaction of people on facebook and other social networks, like blogs, etc, have become from informational, to a way how people can meet one another, interact, and even date. This in the past was never thought, and now relationships, interaction of groups, like chats are very common. Social networks have

Culturally, it is important to see that there is a subculture, mostly in teenagers and younger people, the subculture, of the I Pad, and tablet, and aps people who are identified, by their cell phones, ring tones, and other characteristics of technology. This differs from the older generation that would not do monetary transactions, meet people, or even gather around a computer, this older folks may prefer to go to the bank, gather with friends, and bring a guitar and play. The culture has been subdivided.

Economically, Pay pawl, and other providers like e-bay, has become very popular in the market, aps for real estate and westlaw, for the legal field, has caused a huge impact, on people and their economy, it is taken over many jobs, and also has make people gain a lot o money, people needed to physically be instructed by someone or by reading, and now there is more accessibility through the internet, where most people can find the answers the they need most of the time. The economy is being monopolized by the electronic era. (Edwin Duque)

----

I agree with my colleagues contributions above. There is no doubt that we've had significant social, cultural, political, and economic changes associated with the spread of the Internet and digital technologies throughout the years in both spheres personal and professional.

Regarding the personal impacts, one example is that if we think about the new generation of people that is part of what they call "Generation Z", instead of playing with the traditional toys that we had in our childhood, when they are kids their main entertainment are the electronic devices with Internet access. A one-two year old child currently simply grab their parent's iPads/tablets or smartphones and play with apps. It's impressive how quickly they get used to those devices. Some years later they start interacting with people all over the world through online games, social media, Skype, whatsapp, blogs and others, as we are all able to do nowadays. Besides that, with the Internet we started having access to a variety of information, books, history, news, we can shop through it, take online courses provided by schools/institutions in several countries, we can make a reservation at a restaurant wherever we want, we can compare prices and quality of products and services, we can be always updated about what is happening in any part of the world, all without leaving home. In addition, basically we register "our lives" in those devices, which have become more and more multifunctional, as we use our cell phones to make calls, as an agenda, to take pictures and record videos, to message our contacts, everything to make life more practical.

So, the Internet really broke barriers and made our lives much easier, also in the professional sphere, as for instance we can attend online meetings, what also economically saying the companies can save money that would be invested in trips, we can have more flexibility when the home office is allowed, the companies can storage their data and also their client's in those devices and the physical archive has been practically extinguished etc.

However, in both spheres people and companies have been facing problems regarding privacy matters, cyber crimes, as it occurred recently with Sony Pictures, cyber espionage, also between countries, what has a political impact, and the legislation hasn't been able to follow the technological advancement in the same speed.

Therefore, one of the most important topics currently, which is a global concern and that is in the spotlight is Cyber Security.
[[User:Natasha Jalbut|Natasha Jalbut]] ([[User talk:Natasha Jalbut|talk]]) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The internet, and with it the information age, has vastly changed the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I believe the internet has both managed to make the world smaller and at the same time individual's interaction with the world larger.

On a Social level anyone can make an immediate connection with anyone else in the world provided they both have access to the internet. This breaks down many barriers in itself from where we were only a few decades ago where individual towns and neighborhoods became a cocoon for anyone who did not or could not venture out. Today those same towns have citizens who are in relationships with people they may never have met through dating websites and other forms of communication. Distance is no longer an issue for many.

From a cultural perspective we are exposed to new lifestyles and languages that you many never have seen otherwise. One great example is the growing 'Anime' (Japanese style for animation in television and movies) following. If it wasn't for the internet many of these popular shows in Asia would not be known in the United States. At the same time this form of information/entertainment sharing can lead to a narrow and specific view of what is a diverse culture in itself.

Politically the internet has created a new powerful platform that politicians need to work with in order to win elections or pass a vote with the public support. A few years ago an internet following might not have made a campaign but today groups like the Human Rights Campaign rely heavily on it and in doing so have made changes in the political landscape.

[[User:Samaei1|Samaei1]] ([[User talk:Samaei1|talk]]) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (EST)

----

The information age, by way of the Internet, has revolutionized the world exponentially. Socially, the internet was initially utilized to communicate
via email and to obtain readily available information. Today the use of email has practically bankrupted the United States Postal Service and the internet in some aspects has become the primary source of information enabling proponents of civil unrest to generate support throughout the world. This is an overly generalized outlook on the growth of the internet but as one can see even in these sectors the great impact it has had on society.

Culturally, the evolution of myspace, facebook, twitter and the like has reflected how the young guides the old on this highway. The adaptability of the young and their ability to embrace new arenas in cyberspace dictates how and where their parents socially intermingle on line. Additionally, it also reflects how providers of such social networks have to adapt to the young or become irrelevant such as the case with myspace. The online language that we engage in has become a part of our day to day interpersonal communication with others. Our day to day realities is not concrete reality until it becomes "facebook official". Sadly, as with any revolution, I fear that legislative policy such as censorship and intermediary provider responsibility will begin to take affect and slow the amazing advances that have been made culturally in this technological era. Case in point, it is beyond my wildest dreams that I have the privilege to participate in a course taught online by Professor Sellars at HES. The paths to education through coursera and edx which are free is an opportunity and path for learning that we never had before. However, with continuing legislation, censorship and/or surveillance the ideas that we formulate from the knowledge that we now have equal access will have a limited capacity to flourish. So I reflect on how that will affect our culture.

Lastly, the political aspect of the internet is one of the primary reasons I registered for the course. As a news junkie, I followed the sony hacking incident closely. I am discombobulated by the fact that a nation state such as North Korea has the power to limit the freedoms of United States Citizens. The reality that the internet can be used as an effective tool for cyber warfare between countries is astounding yet twistedly intriguing.
Additionally, speeches that were once hard to circulate can be uploaded within seconds and has ended political careers. Most recently, the ramble of Sarah Palin has been looped so many times any serious presidential contention in 2016 is now forgotten. So the political media power of the internet has grown significantly.
[[User:Mmcasse|Mmcasse]] ([[User talk:Mmcasse|talk]]) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Today, internet is all around us and with that, we live in a world where we are constanly connected to family and friends, miles away, whether via our phone, laptop, iPad/etc. Socially, Skype and Facetime allow us real time conversation across oceans and Facebook/Twitter allow us instant gratification whether uploading a status or liking a tweet. Games on phones allow us to challenge an oppenent all only possible with Internet.

Politically speaking, Twitter has created an outlet for involved leaders to voice their opinions while receiving instant “reviews” from followers. This allows people to receive news from figures regarding a wide variety from the birth of Hilary Clintons grandchild to Secretary of State Kerry being fined for not shoveling his walkway. In addiiton, leaders can upload videos and one can watch President Obama give the State of the Union online.

Econimically, the Interent has created online banking. Paper bills are a thing of the past and many of us rely on the Internet to not only pay our bills but to online bank. Accounts are saved on smart phones and bills are set on a recurring cycle to be paid online, many times without the payer even having to log in for a transcation to be complete. [[User:Cbore001|Cbore001]] ([[User talk:Cbore001|talk]]) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (EST)

----

Significant changes are visible all around us. Socially, the internet has become our connection to many people we would otherwise never meet be it through online dating, an internet job search, or any one of the shared economy apps or sites we now use like Uber or Airbnb. We are easily connected to people directly without much hassle or obstacle. Another social change is that we no longer have to wait for an audience, we can just throw things out there and sit back and see how people react without any direct implications. Some sites and apps even allow us to do this anonymously like YikYak or Reddit causing an even greater cushion of safety to the speaker. This can be good or bad, in some cases giving people the freedom to seek support or help for a problem anonymously, or by giving predators an easy way to track down their prey and slanderers an easy way to disseminate harmful information. These things were possible in the past, but never before have they been so freely at our fingertips.

Economically, the Internet has completely altered the landscape of enterprise. If a business doesn’t have a website it is considered obsolete. In large cities, it goes further, a business needs to have an app to stay relevant. Then there’s the matter of online shopping. I can’t remember the last time I went shoe shopping at a physical store. I would feel it’s a waste of time because online I have so much more information on the products available to me and usually at a better price. We also have working from home. Many tech companies offer this option and there are other companies which solely have remote employees due to the ubiquity of internet access in major cities in the U.S. and the nature of the work. For personal affairs we can do online banking, pay bills online, order food online, and the list goes on.

Culturally, people have greater exposure to the outside world. This has caused some to become more diverse and open and yet others to try to close themselves off even more and fight the compromise of their own culture. Western culture is spreading to less developed countries at an alarming rate causing younger people in those countries to reject many cultural norms such as respect for authority figures, arranged marriages, and religion. There is also much positive dispersal of cultural information, such as in the form of languages. Programs for learning languages are offered on many websites, sometimes for free as in the case of livemocha.com. Even on youtube.com there are many videos offered for learning just about any language.

Politically, we now have more avenues than ever before to voice our opinions. No more letters to the editor or opinion columns in local newspapers, we can now holler our opinions far and wide using the help of social media sites, opinion polls, debate forums, and much much more. That’s not to say that we’ve become more intelligent politically, that’s a whole different story. More information is available at our fingertips, the only problem is that we only click on the things that reinforce the opinions we already have. But updates about political activity are available literally 24/7 which keeps the race ruthless and tireless. Furthermore, a politician’s online presence can make or break their career. There are no more secret affairs or fetishes. Though people may get away with these things still, they must be much more careful because one slip up could mean their last. ([[User:Oliviabrinich|Oliviabrinich]] ([[User talk:Oliviabrinich|talk]]) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (EST))

----
The proliferation of the internet and social media, have facilitated the spread of information, from viral marketing campaigns to political campaigns. Both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, demonstrated the importance of digital technologies for cultivating grass-roots support and financial contributions. Since then the appeals from political campaigns, for supporter contributions have become continuous, and hard to avoid.

Social media has helped to disseminate opinions, of both high profile people and those in one's own social circle, more widely than they might otherwise have been, and perhaps also more quickly than desirable. It is now very easy to write ill considered words, which then get disseminated and dissected, potentially causing a media controversy. Equally, digital technology has had a great impact on the notion of privacy. Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the proliferation of online activism, has renewed the civil liberties debate and discussions about privacy. The internet continually reaffirms how interconnected the world now is, and how tangible something that begins in cyberspace can be. [[User:AlexanderH|AlexanderH]] ([[User talk:AlexanderH|talk]]) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (EST)

----

First of all, I would like to say I find all posts very interesting to read and judging by them, it is obviously that we all agree on the fact that Internet has a huge impact on our lives. Every aspect of our everyday activity is somehow connected online - communication with friends is going through social networks, chats, almost any type of business has its website which has become more important than the business card. When we are choosing provider of any kind, the first thing to do is to check him online, his website, some reviews in the forums if possible. Leisure and free time, of course - movies, music, computer games and so on, picnics and walks in the park are getting behind somehow. It has even become an obsession for many people to be online 24/7 and not being connected makes them feel uncomfortable.

From cultural stand point, I would rather say that there are more positive effects than negative. I would point out Google Cultural Institute as my favourite cultural, on-line invention. It is amazing that people from everywhere could actually explore cultural treasures from all around the world in the smallest details and for free. This as well as free e-books projects, like Project Gutenberg, are priceless gifts for our generations, showing that information and knowledge most of all, could be accessible to everyone who desires. I very much like the example Josefin has given in her post, saying that the mere existence of this online course and our participation in it is a proof enough how Internet helps us achieving things, that some years ago would have been impossible for many of us. This being said, I would not like to ignore the fact that the endless ocean of information Internet is, could very easily become a danger, especially for children which without a proper control over the online activities, could easily be endangered or at least loos themselves in the immense quantity of information without getting the real knowledge.

The political sphere has not stayed untouched. Many of the political changes now a days, would have been impossible without the Internet “contributing”. The snow ball phenomenon Arab Spring, for example, is showing that Internet is a powerful tool for people to connect, organize, share ideas and act. The nature of Internet is combining the features and tools of radio, television and newspapers. Therefor if media are defined as an alleged fourth power, I dare say Internet should be defined as the fifth. Another good example of the influence over the political live would be the electronic voting, more precisely the remote e-voting, exercised via Internet. This is an innovation some countries like Australia,Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia , have already implemented.

Talking about the economy, if only we take a look at the numbers Forbes has forecasted saying that "'''By 2017 eMarketer estimates that there will be $440 billion in sales for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% (...)'"'' (Chuck Jones, Forbes,10/02/2013) , we would easily understand why expressions like "Cyber Monday”, were forged, referring to the online sales following the Black Friday sales. There are many other examples of how Internet has become a factor in the economy like the stock exchange market, which would not be the same as we know it without the net, the Bitcoin, the payment processing business and many others. ([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (EST))
-----
Socially, I am that group of parents that drove my children away from FaceBook. I have over 500 friends, including my children, high school and college classmates, work friends, my mom and aunts and uncles and cousins. I also use LinkedIn, which provides another means of social networking and getting your name and resume out to business colleagues. I believe it is a great means of reconnecting with old friends and staying in touch with what is going on around us. But I also understand how we get pigeonholed into a group of people and content that we already agree with.

Politically, I doubt there is a person alive who could stand up to the scrutiny brought on by all the sound bites. (The example of Sarah Palin someone mentioned above). I am sure there are talented people who would be great as President but dare not run because of the heartache and humiliation brought on by posts and opinions on the internet.

Economically, I love that I can schedule all my bills to be paid automatically and I don’t even know how much my electric bill is! I have done my Christmas shopping online before they coined the phrase “Black Friday”. With all our internet transactions, we have less and less privacy. I hired a new plow company for these snowstorms and he called me to describe my house and driveway. Google Earth.

Bottom line, this generation has grown up with the internet, and I imagine could not fathom life without it. I have known life on both sides…. I know most of my family, work and doctors’ phone numbers – from memory. I can drive from here to New York and beyond without a GPS, (we actually had map books!) I also think the internet has a life of its own and has grown beyond our social ability to manage it. I have a particular interest in bullying, and the internet has given huge and dangerous power to the bullies. I look forward to the exchanges in class and here on the discussion board![[User:Chelly.byrne|chelly byrne]] ([[User talk:Chelly.byrne|talk]]) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (EST)

----

I can describe a personal experience that illustrates how the Internet and digital technologies changed our social life. In 2001, I spend six months in New Zealand and all my connection with family and friends in Brazil were via Internet. It was very effective but it was not in real time as it is nowadays. The social medias such as Facebook and Instagram combined with several apps that we can download to our smartphones created a virtual world where we can be in touch with every one in real time. We are able to interact and live the moment that the person in the other side of the line is living. So, when you are far away from home, like I am, you do not feel you are losing so many moments with your family and friends as it used do be. In some way, connected, we get ourselves closer.
In addition, I think that the stock markets are much more sensitive of any changes and news, so the speculation game is faster and dynamic. In a few minutes, every thing can change so it is imperative to be connected. That defines who earn and who lost money. [[User:Lucasrio|Lucasrio]] ([[User talk:Lucasrio|talk]]) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

Information and its more cultured offspring – knowledge -- will always be the unquenchable and unending journey and destination for man and the society he builds. The Internet is, at its essence, a reflection of this yearning -- the Internet and its related digital technologies are merely vehicles expressing a most animal desire; the pursuit of more.

1. An Outlet To Play God: The Social Change

And tricked by our own early dream
And need of solace, we grew self-deceived,
Our making soon our maker did we deem,
And what we had imagined we believed.
--God’s Funeral, T. Hardy

From the Goldsmith and Wu article on Digital Borders, Net use was dominated initially by English-speakers who “…created the Net in their image.”

This line stuck out above the rest and seemed to not only brightly elaborate on the fact at hand, but at a generally applicable trend that the Internet has graced us with; the trend of power-granting – or at least lending us with the illusion of power. We have created in the Internet our perfected selves: it knows everything, it socializes brilliantly, it possesses a strange but alluring appearance of being infinite. Before, man might have turned to the divine for his answers. Now he “Googles” it.

With this tendency, there is also this funny but simultaneous dimension where man knows that not only does he have an alternative to what his ancestors once believed in, modern man has created this entity. The Internet has become at once, a strange kind of divine – unknowable in its vastness, knowable in its man-made fragments.

2. Cheapening of Privacy: The Cultural Change

We now sign sixty, hundred-twenty, two-hundred page software or user agreements just to have the privilege of sharing our entire photographed lives with what we think are a select few eyes – of for some people, not even that. A picture sharing website will usually have some kind of clause saying they have the right to use your picture from an album for “advertising purposes” (Picasa, a few years ago), or the blatant example, Facebook – who is not in the business of social media, rather, it is in the business of information. More specifically, the selling of information – more specifically, the selling of your personal information.

With the rise of the Internet and the software platforms it makes possible, we are now raising a generation of people who have desensitized themselves from any sense of privacy. Any arguments as to the intrusiveness of the likes of Google or Facebook is mostly met with a shrug of “I’ve nothing to hide…. Let them have my information.” Translation: My information, the data that constitutes my persona, my self, my identity, is free for the taking – I have no use for it.”

3. Headless Ubiquity: The Political Change

The structuring of people, the organizing people, the mobilizing of people, and the dividing and unifying of people has been forever changed by the Internet’s introduction of a new management model. The Starfish model.

Brafman and Beckstrom’s “The Starfish and the Spider” is a book about leaderless organizations and their power. They use the Internet as prime example of the omnipotent “Starfish” – a headless creature that moves and lives and in a way, cannot be destroyed. One limb moves and the others follow. Cut a limb and another grows in its place. It has no “brain” it has no “leader” – every piece of itself is self-reliant, self-initiated, yet entirely synchronized. Brafman and Beckstrom compare the starfish with the “Spider – a system of governing people in which there is a clear “head” and there are legs and a body. If the head (president, leader) is cut off the whole thing dies. The Internet has no head (unless we want to get technical here and argue that literal energy is the “head” but technicalities aside...). The Internet is all-powerful while having no single source of its power – if Google dies tomorrow, Yahoo will take its place.

This has powerful implications in our understanding of politics. In our understanding of power. From Twitter-feeds to start a revolution (Arab Spring and Egypt) to the rise of the viral video to satirize and ridicule the previously fearful or the potentially powerful and render them powerless – literally laughing leaders off the political stage. The Internet has become the world’s newest, headless dictator. It is the first dictator without a head but with a body that is all dictator.

----

One of the most interesting, and significant, changes that I think we can attribute to the spread of digital technologies is the toppling of various totalitarian regimes across the Middle East. In 2011, Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign as President of Egypt after only a few months of non-stop protests. The protesters managed to mobilize the Egyptian people on the Internet, through mobile devices and social media, even as they were being censored by the Egyptian government. I believe the experience in Egypt has taught us that, even with censorship of the mainstream media, the Internet can still be used as a weapon against tyrannical dictatorships.

This leads me to another interesting point that I would like to talk about, and that is the question of privacy and the internet. With the evolution of the Internet and its supporting digital technologies, privacy has become a thing of the past. Companies and government agencies often spy and tap into our personal data ostensibly to show us show us adds that we may like and, according to authorities, to protect us from those who may wish to do us harm. But with the recent NSA spying debacle, and with controversy over whether or not the IRS has been using personal data to target certain groups because of their political beliefs, I believe that there should be a limit to how much data people allow the government and private companies to see. Unless we act now, I believe that a lack of privacy will become a major problem for future generations.

[[User:Mishal R. Kennedy|Mishal R. Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Mishal R. Kennedy|talk]]) 12:38PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----

One of the more recent ways in which the Internet is shaping our sociopolitical discourse is through the creation of strong cyber networks for more marginalized communities. For example, the rise of feminist blogs and message boards or hashtags such as #blacklivesmatter can be used in connecting online activity and writing to other forms of non-cyber activism and understanding.

In terms of economic changes prompted by the Internet, online capitalist competition has facilitated the growth of huge online sellers of a variety of goods with versatile virtual purveyors like Amazon. ([[User:Amchugh|Amchugh]] ([[User talk:Amchugh|talk]]) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (EST))

----

One major change the Internet has brought is the democratization of media narratives. I know my classmates have mentioned above a few negative aspects of Internet media and the way it's shaping our political behaviors, but I find the swell of larger contributions by the online public to be incredibly empowering and exciting. For example, after the shootings in Isla Vista, California last spring, when traditional media outlets were largely ignoring the misogynistic motives of the killer, female Twitter users posted millions of tweets with the hashtag #YesAllWomen in order to redirect the narrative and share their experiences of sexism and abuse. Similarly, after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, social media was a cathartic and powerful outlet for the public to rally together, using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Citizen-driven stories like this can even play a large role in political events - back in 2012 when Romney made the comment about "binders full of women," it was social media outlets that exploded, generated a meme, and ultimately shaped the public perception of Romney. The tangible effects of these conversations may be tough to measure, but mass participation in social discussions have been cropping up all throughout the year online.

I'm also fascinated by the social progress the Internet has helped usher in, as well as the intense backlash it has sometimes produced. For example, I think it could be argued that the Internet was at least partially responsible for how swiftly the gay marriage debate has shifted in the past several years. Online campaigns like "It Gets Better" and "No H8" have gone viral and reached ears that might otherwise not have been willing to listen. On the other hand, incidents like Gamergate show the danger of anonymity and lack of regulation online, and the way it can impact groups like women. As a personal note, the experience of women online is something that fascinates me greatly and one of the big reasons I enrolled in this course.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 13:56, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
Indelibly, electronic commerce has changed the way the world purchases goods. Whether for personal or business use, the model of internet purchasing has created a subgenre of the way economic business is transacted. For example, large companies use intranets (modeled from the internet, for internal purchasing) which streamline purchasing and can allow the company to be for fiscally efficient.

The internet is a boon to introverts. The timid and shy have a vehicle for clearly expressing him or herself with very little risk to their person; visually creative with design, literally with blogs and other form of written communication, or even purchasing- avoiding crowds, unnecessary conversation or aggressive sales persons.

It is interesting to note that with the advancement of how much the internet is used; adept users develop tools to help others exploit every measure of that success to enable it to grow further. For example the use of filters when shopping: gone are the days when one sat at the computer screen scrolling through all options in order to view a specific type of garment or car. Another example can be the use of customizations in items that are rather hard to customize in reality, i.e. cars, homes, shoes. I think it is often forgotten how far internet technology has advanced in such a short period of time as 20 years.

Economic – Social [[User:JGadson|JGadson]] ([[User talk:JGadson|talk]]) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (EST)

-----

Great conversation everyone. One aspect of the spread of the internet that I find particularly fascinating is the decentralization of journalism. Like when digital cameras - and then camera phones - turned almost every amateur on the street into a photographer, the internet gave everyone who can write and type (and has access to a computer) a platform for broadcasting their thoughts, opinions, and experiences. No printing press, copy editor, or delivery boy needed.

You would think that with so many people putting their thoughts into the marketplace of ideas, we’d be better off. But with everything that’s now on the internet, it’s constant information overload and that makes it all too tempting to pick news sources that reinforce preexisting beliefs, rather than listen to anyone who might call into question or expand our thinking.

What I find more dangerous than humans boxing themselves into ideological corners, however, is when coders box people into ideological corners, especially without their knowledge. Google searches, for example, are no longer created equal; we see results that google thinks we want to see. Facebook no longer shows us all our friends’ posts but rather just the ones it thinks we’ll like most. The internet is trying to be a golden retriever and just please us, but that’s not what we need it to do or be.

Another significant change associated with the spread of the internet has been the normalization of invasions of privacy. We have come to expect and even joke about how visiting a site like WikiLeaks has put us on “a list somewhere.” We’ve accepted that that’s just the cost of having a “free” internet.

All that said I believe the internet has become critically important for information sharing and gathering, for maintaining social networks, and for social justice movements.

--[[User:Kelly.wilson|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson|talk]]) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (EST)

----
The individualized nature of current social media, springing from initial mediums like personalized web pages and blogs, finds an unusual home in current political trends and more specifically uprisings. The Arab Spring is typically pointed to as an unprecedented example of utilizing Facebook and Twitter to organize mass demonstrations, even coining the term “Twitter Revolution” to help explain what modern physical protests actualized through an interconnected social platform look like. The internet also impacts the accessibility of stories taking place across the globe. The 2011 Egyptian Revolution and the 2014 invasion of Crimea by Russian forces are examples of highly visible events whose influence in the social media sphere permeated traditional media and coverage. The advent of crowdsourcing, which has seen particular growth in the last five years has managed to leverage online spaces to send aid or relief to less advantaged people not only in the communities of its users, but across the world as well. So while many of the readings we did for this week and videos we watched online offered a slightly more pessimistic view of how we have potentially stumbled into misuse of the enormous resource the internet is, many of the largest sociopolitical upheavals of the 21st century so far owe a great debt to its ability to connect people to pertinent and rapidly shifting information.
[[User:Meredithmblake|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake|talk]]) 15:46, 3 February 2015 (EST)