Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2015-05-11T22:43:35Z

MattK: /* 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)

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

Title: Final Project: 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_Final_Project.pdf

[[User:EmiMac|EmiMac]] ([[User talk:EmiMac|talk]]) 09:52, 11 May 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_Assignment5.docx

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 18:43, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
----

Final Projects

2015-05-11T22:43:14Z

MattK: /* Submissions */

File:MattK Assignment5.docx

2015-05-11T22:41:35Z

MattK:

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-21T00:31:34Z

MattK: /* 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:''' 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)

----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-21T00:30:49Z

MattK: /* 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:''' 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]]) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-21T00:29:38Z

MattK: /* 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==

MattK
"Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-21T00:29:01Z

MattK: /* 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==

MattK /
"Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction." /
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----

Assignment 4 Submissions

2015-04-21T00:28:32Z

MattK: /* 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==

MattK
"Does the Hammer Ring True? Assessing John Scalzi's Mallet of Loving Correction."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_Assignment4.docx
[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

----

File:MattK Assignment4.docx

2015-04-21T00:26:22Z

MattK:

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T01:52:55Z

MattK: /* 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:''' 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)

----

Assignment 3 Submissions

2015-03-31T01:52:08Z

MattK: /* Submissions */

File:MattK Assignment3.docx

2015-03-31T01:49:29Z

MattK:

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-10T03:34:50Z

MattK:

{{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))

----
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))
----

• 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))
----

• 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)

-----

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)

----

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))
-------
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)

----

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)

----
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)

----

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 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)
----
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)

----

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)

----

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)
----

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)

----

----

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)

----

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,

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)
----

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)

----
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)
-----

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)

--------

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))

__________

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)
----

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

--------
: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)
----

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)
----

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))

Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech

2015-03-10T02:53:32Z

MattK:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 10'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience. With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? Is this form of information dissemination a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better- informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? This class will explore speech online, the laws and corporations that regulate it, and how the Internet deals with speech that is hateful, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable.

==Assignments==

The second half of Assignment 2 (commenting on at least three [[Assignment_2_Submissions|prospectuses]]) is due before class today.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

; Speech Theory

* [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

; Informing the Public in the Internet Age

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age] (read executive summary)

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf Craig Silverman, Lies, Damned Lies, and Viral Content: How News Websites Spread (And Debunk) Online Rumors, Unverified Claims, and Misinformation] (read executive summary)

; Private, public, and platforms - control of speech online

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf Adam Holland et al., NoC Intermediary Case Studies: Intermediary Liability of Intermediaries in the United States] (Sections I and II.A. only)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0 Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules Jeffrey Rosen, The Delete Squad (New Republic)]

* Biz Stone and Alex Macgillivary, [http://blog.twitter.com/2011/01/tweets-must-flow.html The Tweets Must Flow] and [http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html The Tweets Still Must Flow]

; Unwanted and Dangerous Speech

* [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/28/us/politics/ap-us-police-tracking-app.html Sheriffs Expand Concerns About Waze Mobile Traffic App]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2014/03/25/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-and-counterspeech/ Ethan Zuckerman, Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech]

* [https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7 Susan Benesch, Flower Speech: New Responses to Hatred Online]

* [http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233660-gop-lawmaker-isis-shouldnt-have-access-to-twitter Christina Marcos, GOP Lawmaker: ISIS Shouldn't Have Access to Twitter]

== Optional Readings ==

* You may want to revisit EFF's [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment], from the second class's readings

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (Chapter 7)] (skim from 225 ("Our second story focuses…") to 241 (end before "On Power Law Distributions, Network Topology, and Being Heard"); read from 261-66 ("Who Will Play the Watchdog Function?"))

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

* [http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/68-2Jones.pdf RonNell Anderson Jones, Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America] (Section I only)

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontrolled-chapter-5.pdf Ethan Zuckerman, Intermediary Censorship (from ''Access Controlled'')]

* [http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/free-expression-and-controversial.html Rachel Whetstone, Free Expression and Controversial Content on the Web]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCk97LyrqYQ Yochai Benkler, Truthiness and the Networked Public Sphere]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Typologies_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, A Typology of Media Organizations] (skim)

* [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/493/picture-show?act=0#play This American Life, Picture Show] (audio, from 0:00 to 5:09)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]

* [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf Letter to Members of Congress from 49 state and territorial Attorneys General]

* [http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/02/237610.htm Secretary John Kerry, Outlining an Action Agenda to Counter Violent Extremism]

</onlyinclude>

==Links from Class Discussion==

==Class Discussion==

{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

I really liked this week’s readings as we start to enter the topics about speech. It certainly is an interesting and back and forth topic as we must consider the implications of allowing speech (first Amendment), or censoring it incase of certain harms. (such as Apple removing the shaking baby and Bush countdown apps) The Innocence of the Muslim is definitely the most controversial of them all. Though I do agree with Facebook’s and YouTube’s decisions to only censor it for countries that it is considered offensive, and keep it up in the United States due to the first Amendment. The Constitution was created hundreds of years ago, and just as Professor Sellars has said, it’s not like its California Constitution that could be given less importance. The First Amendment has great importance and would be extremely hard to undermine or to change. This reflects hugely on laws that govern the United States as well as firms based in the US. (which means a lot of websites)

It is quite shocking to realize that verification is so difficult on the internet. As Professor Sellars has mentioned, credit card verification for age is difficult for non-commercial websites since extra costs would be required that threatens them to close down. Passwords wouldn’t help much either. With it’s enforcement, even the government has doubts of its ability to really identify if a person is under 18 and visiting a pornographic website. This tough verification process isn’t just in explicit websites but very important too in media outlets on the web. The “blurring” between amateurs and professionals and the different forms of media forces companies to adapt. Profitability comes from internet traffic and when that is the main concern, the quality of the news becomes secondary. There is a conflict on interest between internet traffic and quality of news. As long as traffic is high, it justifies the lower quality of news.

As such, the unfortunate feedback loop of how these fake rumor news becomes headlines and makes the news environment highly delusional. Furthermore, when multiple news outlets release the same fake story, it becomes self fulfilling. The belief that “perception is reality” makes people believe in the rumor already even if they know it is fake. They would associate “some truths” to it. But that should be left for another time to discuss. According to Silverman, the trend goes like this: a rumor happens on the internet, then some news outlets report it. It therefore gains traction which makes more news media outlets think it is legitimate and also report it. With so many news websites supporting it, it gains credibility and could no longer trace the source of origin anymore. This is all due to the inability to verify, or the ignorance to verify rumors, especially when these rumor news generate a lot of internet traffic, which translates into advertisement money or click-through-rates, etc.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment is the basic Constitutional law of the United States and would be extremely hard to undermine or ignore. It is in built into the American way of life. This provides the breeding ground of another huge debate between the increasing amount of internet platforms (which are mostly US companies) and the traditional industries that generate content. The former wants “immunity from third party claims” whereas the latter wants laws against copyright infringement. It is hard to satisfy both sides, but both sides do have their points as well. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes copyright work. Yet in contrast, radio and television that infringe this law in live broadcasts tend to be given a better treatment than do websites that are live all the time.

Next I’d like to talk about whether hate speech should be censored. There is always the consideration of censoring hate speech to prevent potential harms coming the way of the institutions or countries. Yet is it against the fundamental laws of that country? I think what Facebook and YouTube did on the video “Innocence of the Muslims” reflected their careful thinking in balancing between regulations (and potential consequences) and the belief of maintaining freedom of speech. According to Rosen, Wong and Willner had the conviction to do what they believed in. Willner finalized Facebook’s hate speech policy to “ban attack on groups, but not institutions”. This was a very good framework to start from. It prevents discrimination to groups of people, but allows opinions towards things, like institutions. This actually resonates with the Waze Traffic application. Facebook and Google (YouTube) were smart to make changes dependent on the laws of those countries it affects. The Waze application lets the app users know where police are. I do not see a problem with this as they are on public territory and once again should be protected by the First Amendment. If it protects me to tell my friend that a cop car is in front of me, it should also protect me to tell people using the app that a cop car is in front of me. This action should be exactly the same.

Now I’d like to give some views on this topic. It is a very fine line between allowing speech to be free on the internet, and potential hazards or discriminations that could occur due to that. I really liked the way Facebook (Willner) did it. I too agree that groups of people should not be allowed to be discriminated against, but institutions should be given the freedom to be criticized if necessary. A just way could be achieved from this. If localizing rules and regulations to websites is plausible (as we learned in previous lectures from the Yahoo case with Nazi products in France), then it should also be plausible to filter down to see what sort of speeches would be against local laws in different countries. I do not agree with the way Apple does things; being scared and taking down apps because they were afraid that a backlash would occur. Corporations should take a strong stance on this too. Yet I feel that because the internet has grown so quickly, it is hard to create “norms” for the internet society. Who should regulate them? Ideally I think a government department should be in charge of this; to create laws and regulations as well as guidelines for these potential sensitive issues. Make it universal so corporations like Facebook and Google could follow. If these two giant corporations follow, so would the rest of the internet.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf

http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules

https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (EST)

----

On the topic of ISIS use of Twitter, you may want to check out the [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf brand new study] by the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. [http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html BoingBoing] already pulled some highlights. [[User:Andy|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy|talk]]) 09:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
----

'''The Hypocrisy of Watchers: Waze'''

Full concurrence with Caelum; this has been a fascinating week of readings.

I was caught especially by the New York Times article about the Waze mobile traffic app alerting users to locations of police cars in their neighborhoods.

I’ve noted this app before on the app store and I always viewed it as similar to those pseudo-spy/surveillance shops. Surely, some kind of undercover detail was covering these places and keeping a sort of watch and tracking of who was buying super secret surveillance cameras that could be hidden inside bobby pins and fountain pens. Surely, these places are tracked and watched themselves by law enforcement. Moreso if these shops are online and it is easier than ever to not only determine who is buying these on the edge of legality spy gadgets, but where they are and what their other purchasing history might be. I associated apps like Waze to be in a similar category; not illegal but certainly not chummy with law enforcement. And certainly watched.

But this is the conspiracist in me. That enforcement is actually concerned enough about these apps seems to imply that they have no real way to track users.

So why do watchers fear being watched? Are they afraid that they will become targets? Law enforcement? So long as they have police cars and wear uniforms that all of us can actually see, unfortunately, they will always be targets to those who want them to be.

It seems that this is more a protest against loss of speeding ticket revenues using the pretense of safety concerns.

In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. The mere presence and reminder is enough to keep law-abiding citizens on the up and up. Waze has a similar effect. If anything, it reminds drivers that we are being watched. And watchers would much rather see things from the shadows than from the spotlight.

This case of protest from law enforcement is a fascinating miniature study into the broader topic of this week’s readings. Watchers don’t appreciate being watched themselves because it has a chilling effect on society when we know and identify those giant cameras in the room. Interestingly, it is an example where the chilling effect is on behavior and on behavior that is illegal or not appropriate to begin with. A positive chilling effect if ever there was one.

The only major loss I see here is that from a traffic enforcement perspective, speeders are going to slow down and as a result, majorly impede police enforcement’s abilities to bring revenue from speed traps. We cannot punish society from sharing public information. Waze deals with public information about police cars parked or located in full view. It simply propates the information so that we “see” the police car one intersection earlier. If law enforcement were truly fearful of their own safety and fearful of targeting, then they wouldn’t put sirens on their cars or decals on their doors or drive around in a police badge or uniform. If they were truly afraid of the light, they’d hide in the darkness wearing not uniforms but in plainscothes and driving unmarked police cars.

In the broader scope of discussion between the tensions of free speech and public safety – this is a case where I fail to see the public safety argument coming on top. It just doesn’t work when it comes from the mouths of the ones who have the most (or, theoretically should have the most) resources to watch and control society.

Chanel

[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I’m fascinated by the topics of free speech, dangerous speech, and harassment online, especially as someone who feels passionate about making the Internet a safer place for women. I have always supported the U.S. Constitution’s steadfast devotion to free speech, but some of the vitriol and abuse I have observed against women online has made me question whether free speech above all other values is too simplistic an approach. My doubts particularly grew throughout the Gamergate phenomenon, during which I observed mind-boggling misogyny directed both to the general online world of women, as well as to specific individuals. It was at that point that I realized that I am personally not in favor of free speech at all costs, since online, the speech of some can silence the speech of others through intimidation and fear. I agree with Ethan Zuckerman free speech is a false concept, since lack of censorship will still lead to certain voices getting suppressed.

Because of this, I was particularly intrigued by Susan Benesch’s research and the idea that hate speech and dangerous speech can be combatted through counter speech, rather than censorship or restrictions. I also found it interesting that social media platforms can make subtle changes to their layout or user experience in order to encourage or discourage certain types of speech. It reinforces the idea that engineers working in Silicon Valley wield incredible power with the choices they make in designing social platforms, and it also highlights the importance of diversity in that workforce, based on the social implications of even the most subtle design choices.

The question that still lingers for me is how the tactic of counter speech might work in self-selecting communities, such as a men’s rights forum. In those cases, there most likely won’t be a larger community to temper conversation through counter speech, but the conversation that takes place on those sites could still potentially spur someone to commit violent action. For example, in the case of the Isla Vista shooter, it’s known that he was involved with men’s rights groups online, but it’s less clear how directly members of those groups incited him to action. It seems that the lines defining incitement and threats are growing blurrier as a result of the Internet, which presents problems of its own when that might be the only justification for restricting certain speech on a site, or addressing it from a legal standpoint (I’m also reminded of the Elonis vs. United States case, where the lines have been particularly blurry as well).

Despite the additional questions that crop up, and some nuances that still aren’t clear to me, I find Susan Benesch’s approach intriguing and promising.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

“In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. “

Great point Chanel, I am in Japan right now and that is what I am seeing all the time when I drive around! They even have fake posters of cop cars with sirens on! Definitely a great chilling effect.

Since the topic is about ISIS, I’d like to share this video that gives a good summary of ISIS. http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

“Almost one in five ISIS supporters selected English as their primary language when using Twitter. Three quarters selected Arabic (section 1.5).”

I think this is an important issue because their purpose of using Twitter would likely to spread their beliefs and thoughts. English is a great medium to do things after all.

“A minimum of 1,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were suspended between September and December 2014, and we saw evidence of potentially thousands more. Accounts that tweeted most often and had the most followers were most likely to be suspended (section 2.5.1).”

I wonder where this kicks in in the security vs. free speech debate. My initial thoughts are that it’s such a sensitive topic that something has to be done. ISIS has definitely done a great deal to promote themselves on social media as evident from the high volume and number of active ISIS users. One in five uses English which really questions who these people are? Are they really radicals and extremists? Not to summarize or generalize, but I believe having some exposure to English means that they probably seen the world in more than one perspective before. If so, wouldn’t they become less of an extremist? Now what questions me is that ISIS might have hired people to help them promote themselves on social media. If so, who is willing to help them? For money? Is it moral to help a group like ISIS? Or wait, did they capture people to do it for them forcefully?

By looking at “Top Hashtags” on page 20 from Berger and Morgan, we could see ISIS references far outweigh other topics in the Middle East. It is not only raising awareness for their group, but also creates this “fear” in other users. This is now the hot topic, and I fear that news outlets would just use this as an excuse to create more traffic for their websites. Afterall, most of these websites only focus on the traffic. And as mentioned in my previous post, over time other news outlets would follow along and it gives “legitimacy” to ISIS. Which is exactly what we do not want. It gives recognition to their group.

“Suspensions, of which Twitter made more than a thousand by December, may have unintended consequences, including cutting off ISIS supporters from beneficial social pressures on Twitter.” – Berger and Morgan.

This is great news, but I do not believe there are smart enough algorithms to track this yet. I believe the data is available, but its more about how we extract this out. I found this website and findings very fascinating. It detaches the extremists from the average Twitter user, which means their objective of spreading their beliefs and causing fear in others would fail. The unintended consequences by Twitter has definitely done more good than harm (from the Western anti-ISIS perspective of course).

Yet it does lurk another question. If there’s more interactions between extremists, did we just help ISIS filter out potential members? Did we just help them find more hardcore supporters that would do their deed? Afterall sifting through hundreds of thousands of people on Twitter isn’t easy. By threatening their existence by deleting accounts, we might have made it easier for them to find loyal followers. (literally, not just on Twitter) Of course all of this is unfalsifiable and we could never prove this unless we go back in time.

After reading those two articles, I start to wonder if platforms are just platforms, or are they much more? So I had a thought about this, imagine a huge whiteboard in a public space. The intention is for people to write on it. It is a public good. It just “exists”. It is a platform for drawings and messages. Some people would draw funny stuff, some would write inspirational stuff. Yet I am sure, some would write religious and philosophical beliefs on it too. Or beliefs that say they despise a group of people. I understand that it is offensive to some groups of people, but what if the sole purpose of that whiteboard was to be a public good so people could write “anything” they want? Or is that too farfetched? Too idealistic of a world? In that case we could say that we never really have full freedom of speech. But then ISIS isn’t protected by the First Amendment! But what if some members of ISIS are Americans?

This issue seems to bring up more questions than it answers. Or perhaps I’m just asking too many questions. Not sure if they’re stupid questions, but they’re just taking over my head. Does the First Amendment only protect Americans? So if Americans uses hate-speech on Twitter to express their disliking of a group, is that protected by the First Amendment or not? I hope I am not ignorant here and just writing about something that has already been answered.

References:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf

http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html

[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 22:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

I was most interested this week in thinking about how most people come at free speech and the Internet and what, as Andy points out, is the legal, structural reality. The Berkman Center video quoted Clay Shirky plainly enough: “The Internet is not a public sphere. It is a private sphere that tolerate public speech.” At first pass, our reactions to censorship on the Internet are largely on first-amendment grounds. This is a public forum, my speech is protected! Indeed, as Shirky points out, this is not so. Regardless of whether you’re posting on Facebook, your blog, or the New York Times comment thread, if you’re posting online, you’re almost guaranteed to be posting on a privately-owned website with a content policy you implicitly agreed to by hitting “post.”

As we’ve already mentioned several times in class, many major companies are making a good faith effort to keep their sites as open to speech as possible. As Rob Faris mentioned, speculators after the ECJ case thought Google was going to grant or throw away all requests for removal of information, either to clog the European court system with 250,000 suits or remove so much content that their search engine was half-useless. Instead, they set out to attempt to find the best route for balancing free speech with legitimate claims against speech. We read in Rosen’s article about the effectiveness of Facebook’s policy dividing individual members of a group from institutions—Facebook (and YouTube) lets is users say, “I hate Islam” but not, “I hate Muslims.” This give and take may be the best effort of international corporations to provide as much speech as possible while complying with local laws and social norms. We read a number of other articles this week that complicate this picture.

As emerged first in our conversation about Google: if you’re a European and you request Google to remove content and it refuses, you may bring your case before a court. If your request is granted, there is no higher authority than the company itself, and your information is removed even if it shouldn’t have been. Andy fleshed out the mechanics of this logic in his article with three structural observations: 1) private companies have set the free speech bar beneath first amendment levels of protection, 2) there is no appeal process; the company owns the interaction, it is not public, and 3) company censorship policies can change without warning; these policies are not the product of a legislative process.

The structural fact of the matter is that users are agents agreeing to the platform’s terms of service—not full citizens with rights as strong as they would be while standing on a soapbox. Major online companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) have already indicated they are interested in making an effort to balance these concerns. But can we say we have free speech online? Certainly not.

[[User:MattK|MattK]] ([[User talk:MattK|talk]]) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

----

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T03:01:53Z

MattK: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2015-03-03T03:01:14Z

MattK: /* Comments */

File:MattK Assignment2.docx

2015-03-03T02:57:21Z

MattK:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2015-02-10T20:39:34Z

MattK: /* 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:

Rhurls (Ryan H.)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

Article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_law#Academic_Aspects_of_Sports_Law

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_internet_law.docx

---------------------------------------------------------
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
-----
MeredithB

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_an_Open_Europe

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Meredith_Blake._Assignment_1.rtf
-----
Mishal R. Kennedy:

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M15/42_tank

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Essay_(Internet_and_Politics,_Assignment_1)_Mishal_Kennedy.rtf
-----

Jan.Yburan

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_(sport)#Collegiate_Swimming

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jan_Yburan.Assingment1.docx

----
Gia
Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Wikipedia_Assignment_1.docx
----
Gary Brown (Intor1 on Wikipedia)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_computing#Internet_Law

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Gary_Brown_Assignment1.docx
----
Michelle Byrne (Chelly.Byrne)

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bim_Skala_Bim

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ChellyByrne_Assignment1.pdf
----
MattK

Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_resilience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_%28race%29_in_the_United_States

Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MattK_WikiEdits_LSTU120.docx
----

File:MattK WikiEdits LSTU120.docx

2015-02-10T20:36:08Z

MattK:

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2015-01-27T22:42:41Z

MattK: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

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.

<onlyinclude>

== 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)

* [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>

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)

----

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)

----