Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2014-02-04T21:50:44Z

Rstempfley:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 4'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

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

; The effects of control

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

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

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:49, 8 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

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

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:39, 31 January 2014 (EST)

----

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

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 03:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

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

----

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

:At an [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/02/defending_an_unowned_internet event last night] Prof. Zittrain mentioned another possible enclosure movement for generativity I hadn't thought of before: many web services are finding themselves at the receiving end of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS#Distributed_attack DDoS Attacks] for one reason or another. As a result, services are moving from their own servers capable of withstanding such attacks - primarily [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services Amazon Web Services], but there are a few others as well. If all of the Internet moves to just one of three or four web servers, that gives those servers tremendous power to cut off something they may not like. That's a form of "contingent generativity" that could cut off a lot of the social good that both Zittrain and Benkler flag in their articles. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:28, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

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

----

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

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

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 04:08, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:48, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

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

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

----

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

----

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

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 14:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

IMPROVING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ACCELERATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

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

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

WHY THE GOVERNMENT MUST OWN THE COUNTRY'S INTERNET BACKBONE

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

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:32, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 15:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:42, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:51, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

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

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

[[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:59, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

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

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

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

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-28T20:00:40Z

Rstempfley:

{{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 Net 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 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?'''

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 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]

* [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?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== 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! '''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>

Access and participation afforded by the spread of digital technologies have had a significant impact socially, culturally, politically, and economically. Socially, access to networking platforms, social media, internet calling services and instant messaging have changed the quantity of individual connections- and quality of relationships- regardless of location throughout the world. Culturally, stratification of identity or orientation has shifted significantly; the emphasis on national, religious, ethnic, and other cultural differences has been diluted by the rise of interconnectivity, access to information and the ability to participate across cultures. Politically and economically, the impact is largely similar- access to non-traditional and real-time news sources fostered by the spread of digital technology empowers the consumer as well as the constituent. The ability to inform oneself and advocate for individual and collective interests has changed the landscape of economic and political participation; unfortunately this has been coupled with increased concerns about rights to information disseminated on the internet and the protection of privacy at the individual and organizational level. [[User:Akk22|Akk22]] 11:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The explosion of digital technology has dramatically impacted society in all facets of life. It has evolved us as a species and will continue to change the way in which we interact with each other, the way we think, and eventually the human body itself will gradually transform. In terms of inventions, the birth of the internet has far surpassed any other invention known to mankind with respect to the magnitude of change occurring within the relatively short lifespan of its existence. As a child, I recall when robots were once considered something so distant in the future, but now we have a form of a robot with the internet. It contains more "knowledge" and holds more information than any human being.

Digital technology has altered society in several ways that I have observed and experienced:

Socially & Culturally - Digital technology has changed the way humans make plans and interact with one another. It appears that encounters and relationships have somehow become more casual and less personal via the advancement and widespread use of social media. Formalities and formal interactions are becoming less common. A simple text message now is the norm for setting up a date with a potential mate rather than a phone call or knocking on the lady's door to ask her parents' permission for a proper date.

Along these lines, for better or worse, it appears that even the cultural style of dress for those in the younger generations has evolved into a more casual trend. People are generally more accepting with an "anything goes" type of attitude. The iconic CEO Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerburg, is often seen wearing his T-Shirt even when meeting with other high profile CEOs and officials.

The so-called "dot-com" generation has also been known to feel the need for "instant gratification" and appear to have less patience than the elder members of society. This makes sense given digital technology's ease of immediate information sharing and overall access to information at the click of a button. Only a few years ago it seemed normal if someone did not respond within a day or two. Now if someone does not answer after one or two days, 911 is serious consideration.

General reliability between friends is also another changing element of human interaction because with the click of a button someone can cancel plans or easily evade previously planned obligations. A few decades ago, if I told someone we were to meet at the train station, I had better show up because I had no way of letting my comrade know I could not make it. It used to be considered nearly impossible to ask someone to "hang out" on the same day because planning with such short notice was simply not possible. With cell phones and text messaging, "meeting up" is now the norm and planning events out is becoming less common (or so has been true in my experience).

Governance & Governing: As Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu illustrate in their example about Yahoo in "Digital Borders", the internet has and I believe will continue to erode the general power of government. The internet has no borders and trying to determine the convoluted doctrine of privacy is a grapple for any expert to endure. The internet also enhances the power of the individual (for better or worse) as it affords all members of the world with a platform for anyone to view. With an unlimited audience propaganda becomes all the more powerful and any thought can be expressed and followed by the masses. Culturally, this can also enhance narcissism to the extent that one's own thoughts, photos, and individual power/image can be continually broadcasted for the world to see.

The internet has obviously changed the way laws are enforced and the modus operandi in which criminals operate. While the internet has arguably made it easier for law enforcement to catch certain types of criminals, other types of threats (namely, cyber crime) are more difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to detect.

Economy: While the internet has worked wonders for many economic gains such as providing general efficiency; the downside is the threat that if the internet crashes or otherwise becomes inoperable, business suddenly takes a back seat and can become totally paralyzed acting as a prime target for adversaries (as the recent Target credit card hacking events have shown). In other words, the benefits of efficiency are only truly beneficial to the extent that internet platforms are operating smoothly. The overdependence on the internet is perhaps the most frightening thing our society faces. I will never forget the first time I was at a store and the "servers" were down at the checkout counter. After two hours of shopping and loads of groceries, I was turned away even after offering cash! The computer system required all transactions to be logged. The damage to the economy if this were to happen on a grand scale would be damming.

The internet has actually changed the very definition of success and perception of success in my opinion. In one minute, you can become rich off the internet. One youtube video posted can start Justin Bieber's Hollywood career; the advent of a social media website can make someone one of the richest in the world. Striking it rich has become much easier for some who thrive off the popularity contest the internet provides. How this has impacted the traditional view of the American dream remains to be seen.

[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

The spread of digital technologies has sparked an ubiquitous world. Communication is instantaneous, global, and self-published. As a result, the public has chosen which social and political interactions to reject and trust, causing a potentially biased perception of their contemporary world. The irony of this bias is that the ability to access information from a variety of sources is unprecedented; sorting through the inundation of un- and published materials - fact or opinion - becomes a challenge for even the most educated. For the youth, privacy becomes re-defined as being alone physically, yet open to sharing the most insignificant or significant details of their lives digitally (how will these tendencies shape the future?). The combinational effects of these changes establish a gateway for future technologies to be adapted (or rejected) by the public; however, improving awareness and education of the general public is of utmost importance in order for society to fully embrace the power and impact of these future tools.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

“Change” holds neither a positive, nor negative connotation, so I will provide an example of each:

The negative: The ubiquity of camera-equipped, internet-connected smartphones allows millions of Americans to digitally upload and share photographs with ease. Sometimes, though, these photos are compromising and end up in the hands of nefarious purveyors of “revenge porn.” The proliferation of revenge porn can and does compromise the privacy (and oftentimes safety) of private citizens who become unwitting victims of sexual harassment. And in most cases, law enforcement is unable to prosecute offenders. Many U.S. states punish “cyberstalking,” but only as a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement cannot obtain warrants that are necessary to collect evidence needed to prosecute. Recourse in civil court proves equally futile due in large part to antiquated copyright law. I believe that revenge porn serves as an example of the social and political problems that can arise when technology moves faster than the law.

The positive: Digital technology continues to reinvent the culture of higher learning. For instance, I am currently participating in this discussion, and will attend this Cambridge-based class remotely, from my home in Manhattan, NYC. Moreover, MOOCs offered by EdX and similar providers allow interested parties to engage in courses out of genuine interest.

[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 00:33, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies:

1) culturally and politically, spin control held by governments and regional authorities ( religious, corporate, ethnic ) loses traction in the minds of individual internet users; digital tech results in a macro shift of the rhetoric of belief from formerly established originators of spin to the web itself as provider of deconstructed information that individuals more typically use to form their own beliefs and to question the validity of formerly established paradigms.

2)economically, web commerce fast outdates the economics of traditional physically-based logistics. Serious privacy issues among users of new technologies stand as barriers to user confidence, even as new tech info systems tend to present prospective users with no viable lesser-cost alternatives.

[[User:Mbouscaren|Mbouscaren]] 14:55, 25 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The ability to communicate instantly has changed social interactions and relationships on a personal level (i.e. the instant feedback available on social media and communication via email, text, etc.) and in wider communities (i.e. forums, comments on news articles and blogs, etc.). The access to and engagement with new communication technologies can be empowering for those who may have otherwise felt voiceless, while a sense of anonymity can lead to harassment with minimal consequences.

2. Fast and easy access to information that allows individuals to educate themselves (though that has to be balanced against the challenges of finding reliable sources) and have more control as consumers (compare products, read reviews, etc.).

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:25, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

*'''Significant social change -''' People with traits of autism, Asperger's, ADD, dyslexia, social anxiety are becoming over-represented among successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, relative to the population at large. The current economy has been rewarding companies run by people who have mental characteristics adapted to software programming, engineering, and creativity (for example) much more than in the past.

*'''Economic change -''' ''(To be honest, both of my answers could fit into social, political and economic...)'' Markets are shifting from broadcast, one-size fits all models of communication towards narrowcast, peer-to-peer conversations. On the Internet, consumer-driven input, quality products/content and sometimes even user-generated content are valued more highly than tightly-controlled corporate 'spin'. Of course this may change substantially with the fall of net neutrality.

[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 20:15, 26 January 2014 (EST)

----

Significant social change: The way in which news spreads has changed drastically with the advent of the internet. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and particularly Twitter, have become news outlets that have, in some cases, proved to be quicker at providing up-to-the-minute current event info than traditional news providers.

Cultural/legal change: The spread of digital technologies has impacted the music industry and amateur artists in a profound way. A great example is the issue of mash-ups, the cutting and pasting of previously-recorded songs to make a brand new tune. Mash-ups have proven to be an outlet for amateur creativity, as the average person can take different songs (often times of different genres and beats) off the internet and make something entirely new. That amateur can then share her music with others. The music industry is not a fan of mash-ups, claiming that the infringe upon copy-right law. Current copy-right laws in the US are far behind the internet and do not provide guidelines on how to maintain a balance between what mash-up artists consider their 1st Amendment rights and what the music industry consider copy-right infringement.( There's a lot more I could say about this, as I wrote a paper on it, but in the interest of keeping it short, I'll end here.)

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 10:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Technology and the internet have changed the face of communication in all of its various subjects-- political, social, cultural, etc.-- which is to say that it has mostly replaced actual faces and voices with a computer screen. This is not to say that there aren't benefits, as there certainly are a plethora of benefits, ranging from the accessibility of information and quick dissemination of news. With a mere device, one is capable of staying connected to their family, friends, and the community at large no matter where they travel. Like never before, people are being brought together from drastically different backgrounds and geographical locations. We are being exposed to stories about the cultural traditions of the smallest microcosms and have access to nearly every facet of companies, governments, et cetera. While there is certainly power in this digital age of communication, as demonstrated clearly in the political realm with the recent revolution in Egypt, the internet and technology have paradoxically separated us from one another. There is less and less human-to-human contact, with people preferring to sit at home behind their computer or telephone screens instead of discussing events in person. Individuals may now be able to see everything with Google Maps, for instance, but is this a satisfactory substitute for actually experiencing these places and incidents with every sense? And aside from sensory deprivation, we are creating an emotional barrier which spans the gamut from creating social awkwardness in person to allowing thoughtless online bullying to run rampant. However, even with plenty of negatives, can we condemn the very same internet and technologies which have advanced medicine and businesses the world over? The world economy has benefitted greatly, with global commerce being as easy as clicking a button or filling out a billing form. Individuals anywhere can start a business with minimal effort and are able to participate in global trade. As with most good things, there are certainly positives and negatives that go along with the internet and technological advances.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:46, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital technology helps us to automate repetitive, time-consuming, and error-prone tasks, enabling humans to spend more time doing what only humans can do: generate ideas. To use a timely example, TurboTax.com analyzes data and runs calculations for a consumer, saving them time and money by avoiding interaction with an accountant. However, sometimes replacing humans with a machine does not work so well. I personally dislike the self-checkout machines at CVS. They are too loud, and somehow always make some sort of mistake, requiring an attendant to come over and punch in a code, wasting time and failing to fulfill their basic function.

Although digital technology makes our lives easier in countless ways, many of which I might not even appreciate or understand, I think the ease and gratification of digital technologies can take a toll when humans become alienated from basic life tasks that might have their benefits. As "Castille" mentions - the constant use of and reliance on GoogleMaps might prevent people from actually gaining a sense of their environment and making observations that could help them memorize directions or landmarks, and allow them to be more self-reliant. Although digital technology allows developers, artists, educators, etc. to be really creative and productive, it also allows a lot of people to get away with being complacent.

[[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 18:20, 27 January 2014 (EST)

EDIT: I don't mean to say that TurboTax and self-checkout are examples of great social change, but they are signs of greater change like automation which will in turn affect standards for human interaction, self-reliance, etc. [[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 07:29, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

There are several important factors to consider with the rise and spread of digital technologies. From a human interactive tactile context the PC has to be the front runner that covers many sociological concerns that I consider important.

Prior to the smart phone, the personal computer (PC) has to be (and still is) one of the most important aspects of all digital technologies to be thrust upon mankind, because of the potential power it endows upon its owner, knowingly or unknowingly; as it allows one to cross state lines, oceans and continents in mere seconds without much effort by its user. This, coupled with the widespread use of the internet provides an important context to the discussion from a sociological framework. To have so much computing power at ones finger tips, yet it is often relegated by its user to social networking, video games and entertainment, that human contact is subconsciously negated by the user. Having to get out of the house is becoming more of a chore due to what can be done online. Hiking out in the woods for field trips or class projects is becoming more and more a novelty for students and teachers alike. We can't wait to get laptops in the hands of students in third world countries, for what, so that they too can watch life on a screen, rather then be poor and kick a soccer ball around a field somewhere.

At the end of the day, from both a global and sociological standpoint, the widespread use of digital technologies has just as many concerns as it does rewards.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 23:08, 27 January 2014 (EST)

----

1. The launch of Sputnik changed many things — scientific, technological, military, and political — and the cold war of course spurred the beginnings of the internet in its earliest forms amongst the military, scientists, and researchers who used ARPAnet to transfer information, which fed American interest in the sciences and provided a foundation for the very digital technologies that now aid in the spread of our current digital technologies.

2. This leads into a second point, which is that intensified globalization of cultural elements — arguably beginning with WWII and intensifying in the '90s — promoted commercialization of the internet in the early '90s and put digital technology propagation into fast-forward. Suddenly we are able to access information on the other end of the world, rapidly, from the comfort of our own homes, and this allowed for ideas and digital technologies to spread over (again) the very digital technologies that made them possible. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:23, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Free speech ideals are one of the political, social/cultural, and even economic challenges of the spread of digital technologies. Some people want to be able to say or produce whatever they want on the World Wide Web. And some people think like the author of "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", that the internet community can police themselves. But how would the internet prevent child pornography, or financial fraud from occurring without the help of government agencies? These are real questions that are worth debate. No one has all the answers yet.

Socially and culturally the challenges presented by the spread of digital technologies, revolves around how we use these technologies to communicate. We are still deciding what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, socially and culturally. This social/cultural debate about the Internet is often about privacy-how much are we willing to share online. Each person is different and each culture/country feels different about how much should be revealed or restricted online. This leads us to economic results related to the spread of internet technologies.

One of the reasons that privacy is a concern with digital tech, is that companies want Internet user information. They want to know where you live, where you work, what are your favorite TV shows, and your food preferences, so that they can better sell to you. Economics also plays a role in how you will receive your Internet content/speed. Verizon and the FCC were recently in federal court arguing about whether Verizon could add additional charges to content providers, i.e. in theory, Verizon could charge these providers to reach their customers.

Politically, we have seen that digital technologies can be used to spy on citizens, and they also can be used by whistleblowers to shed light on secret activities by governments, as in the Edward Snowden incident.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

(Apologies in advance for the length)
Seems there is quite often a direct and indirect "significant change" that can be associated with each of these areas and advances in digital technologies.

The evolution of popular social networks such as Facebook or match.com are prime examples of where the technology has prompted significant change in our social behaviors. These and similar services have shifted the dynamic in our relationships with others. The ability to discover, connect and continually communicate with "friends” without geographical limitations, and without significant costs, has allowed communities, groups and couples to form tightly knit units. This has lead to countless new marriages, allowed us an ability to sustain long-distance relationships via Skype and FaceTime technologies. Such relationships were economically and technically impossible during the days of the Bell Telephone monopoly, which seem not too long ago. Yet, plenty of indirect "significant changes" related to this same area are also becoming more frequent... As a quick example, plenty of divorces have been linked to the "discovery" of online affairs, and the same social technologies have been exploited by predatory sex offenders who can easily pose as a "friend" on Facebook to unsuspecting children.

Politically, the expansion of the digital technologies has certainly allowed for many to enter into politics and effect public policy. A standard strategy now, but web-savvy politicians have been able to exploit the new technologies as a means of reaching their followers for not only "connecting" with potential constituents, but also it has allowed those who may never have considered running for public office, a means of "discovering" their political base, building support and financial contributions through the internet to drive their campaign. Not only for "career politicians", but also for the grassroots network that can help bolster a campaign for political outsiders the likes of Jessie "the Body" Ventura, and help launch a foray into politics. Conversely, political careers have certainly been destroyed by improprieties that the advances in digital technologies have made all too quick & easy. Best exemplified recently by a US Congressman (who needs no introduction) uploading certain digital photographs to an online "friend"...which indirectly has ramifications for his entire political party's platform which cannot afford to lose that 1 seat in the House of Representatives.

Culturally - the spread of digital technologies have allowed us to collaborate and learn from communities around the world as never before... The instantaneous ability to share news, images, sound and video has brought us a greater understanding into the lives and conditions of many different cultures around the world. We learn how they must thrive, struggle and persevere within unfamiliar regions worldwide. The world's news can become as "local" as the reports we hear everyday on our city's local TV news station. The consumer need only choose from where they wish to receive a daily RSS feed, or return daily to a "Bookmark" linking to their country's leading news service. Indirectly, this same ability to glance into another culture via online technologies can trigger an all-too-limited view of what a particular culture's values may or may not be. The predominant exposure of anti-American videos and rhetoric promoting atrocities against westerners by radical Islamic militant groups using the internet to build and recruit an international army of terrorists, has certainly skewed the non-Islamic world's understanding of the culture of Islam and the very large majority of Muslims around the world who are as peaceful, humane, and caring as we all strive to be.

Economically, the significant changes that have been prompted by advances in digital technologies are numerous. The entire economic model in many industries has needed to adapt to the new opportunities that digital technologies allowed (and expected) or risk their corporation’s demise. Photography, Music and Publishing have all seen major shifts in their production, marketing, distribution and sales models. Amazon was an early player in adapting to the new online economy, and many brick-and-mortar shops fell victim to the competition. In the publishing world, and ever more frequently within the music world, we are now leasing our content at the same (and sometimes much larger) costs than what consumers formerly paid to physically own the content. In addition to the content itself, providers are also able to charge for delivery mechanisms (propriety interfaces to interact with the content) or require “subscriber fees” to access cloud storage of your personal collection of digital assets (Music, e-books, library archiving projects, etc) How we read, listen, and enjoy the many arts are all indirectly changed because of the advances in digital technology and our reliance on the internet combined with smart devices to deliver content to us. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 13:17, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

The recent technological advances, and the development of the internet in particular, have brought about many changes to every part of our lives as individuals, as well as to the functioning of the society as a whole.

One of the most far-reaching effects of the development of the internet is the ease of mobilizing thousands and millions of people behind shared goals, for good, or for bad. From a satellite launch crowdfunded on Kickstarter, through the decline of “pink slime” following a change.org petition, to oppressing governments using online media to remain in power, the last few years in particular have hinted at the things to come. Indeed, what we're starting to see is that contrary to predictions of centuries past, the future of computing is turning out to center not on improved artificial intelligence through ever increasing computational power, but on real people empowered by technology.

A concept seemingly opposite to the idea of crowdsourcing is decentralization, another keyword for this decade. Governments across the world are beginning to wrap their heads around the internet and are becoming increasingly good at policing it. Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are also constantly tightening their grip on the large sections of the internet within their reach and control. The recent developments in federated social networks, decentralized authentication methods and currencies, and independent mesh networking however suggest that internet might in fact grow more uncontrollable than ever in the years to come.
[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:51, 28 January 2014 (EST)

----

Digital techniologies have created the promise of instant access to answers and information. They have removed the middle men and connected information producers and consumers, for example, with the advent of digital publishing authors, musicians, etc have more access to their readers and as such produce content with seemingly more artistic control. This in turn may have created microcosms of demand and increased the polarization of the conversation and reduced our experience with consensus building and effective dialog.

Additionally, the advent of digital technologies has increased the transparency of individuals and governments as they engage and as such has both benefited and hampered the international political dialog. Individual actions and the actions of individuals within governments and institutions are open for scrutiny often by entities who are not familiar with the context. [[User:Rstempfley|Rstempfley]] 15:00, 28 January 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for the comments, and for the formatting update as well! If people would like to treat each of these as the start of a thread and reply feel free to do so - just insert a colon before your reply. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:57, 28 January 2014 (EST)