Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2014-05-13T21:06:17Z

Twood: /* 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 or Pseudonym: [[User:Castille|Castille]] 23:45, 9 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Self Help or Self Harm? Tumblr's governance of its self harm communities
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_LSTU_FINAL_PAPER.doc

------

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:55, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Twitch Plays Pokémon - How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:MikeJohnson_FinalProject.pdf

----
*Name or Pseudonym: ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:06, 12 May 2014 (EDT))
*Title: Controlling our personal genomes: How has 23andMe changed its policies, norms, and architecture in response to the recent FDA ban and how has this impacted data sharing?
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Final.docx

----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 13:29, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Airbnb: Online Trust theory & Lessig's four modalities of control.
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_project_barkey.pdf
----

*Name or Pseudonym: ([[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 21:51, 12 May 2014 (EDT))
*Title: Forum policy guidelines at Anandtech.com: Examining the CPU's and Overclocking sub-forum behavioral characteristics.
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dancoron_Final.doc

----

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 00:30, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Censoring the Bitcoin Community
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Bitcoin_Project,_Daniel_Rogowski.docx

----

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 00:30, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Comparing Forum Communities for Two Major Online Games
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU_Assignment5.pdf

----

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 13:44, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Control vs. collaboration: The case of Mexico’s Open Data Policy government-run platform
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Luciagamboaso_FinalAssignment.pdf

----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:40, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_akk22.pdf

----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Castille|Castille]] 23:45, 9 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Self Help or Self Harm? Tumblr's governance of its self harm communities
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_LSTU_FINAL_PAPER.doc

----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:44, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Understanding Online Interaction: Who Sets the Norm on Youtube Communities?
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assingment_4_Final.docx
----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:15, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Bounties and underrepresented topics
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120FinalPaper_%281%29.pdf
----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Watson|Watson]] 15:30, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Liveleak and the Syrian Crisis
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_final_paper.pdf
----
*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 16:45, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information: A Comparison of Harvard Extension School Admissions Information Across Forums
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Vance.Puchalski-Final_Project.docx
----

*Name or Pseudonym:[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 16:49, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: DEFCON Community Forums
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Final.pdf
----

*Name or Pseudonym: [[User:Twood|Twood]] 17:06, 13 May 2014 (EDT)
*Title: They’re Not Gonna Take It: YouTube’s Control Of The Anime Mashup Community
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:TWOOD_assignment_five_final_project.docx
----

Extra Credit Submissions

2014-05-06T20:09:47Z

Twood: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 6th.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 13th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

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

==Submissions==

----
{{AssignmentInfo|Julie|My presentation will explain how North Korea is portrayed on Twitter, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between traditional media and citizen journalism. I do not have extra materials to upload for my presentation.}}
[[User:Julie|Julie]]

----
{{AssignmentInfo|Lucia Gamboa |Video: Control & success: The case of Mexico's Open data policy government-run platform
I will present a short video focusing on how a good balance of moderation and control led to the platform's success as an online participatory tool}}]
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 18:21, 5 May 2014 (EDT)

----
{{AssignmentInfo|Watson|Video: The Internet, Liveleak, and the Dissemination of Information in Syria|
https://vimeo.com/93904486 Password: LSTUE120|}}
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 18:17, 4 May 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Castille|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEBleuuKWOw Video: Self Help or Self Harm: Tumblr's governance of its self harm community]}}
[[[User:Castille|Castille]] 01:26, 5 May 2014 (EDT)]}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Vance.Puchalski|Project: Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information|
Presenting findings in class with no material to upload|}}
[[[[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 02:02, 5 May 2014 (EDT)]}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|akk22|Audio file: 3. min interview with Women Action Media Blogger S. Alcid about experience with online harassment and successful regulations & community interventions|
Link to itunes file |}}
[[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:27, 6 May 2014 (EDT)]}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Byrnes|Powerpoint presentations on Rankopedia's community ownership vs Lessig's four forces. | Presenting in class}}
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 14:36, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

----

Philip Seyfi
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEBleuuKWOw Podcast: StackOverflow, unbalanced communities]
[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:41, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Psl |Project: Crowd Control: PubMed Commons |
Presenting findings in class with no material to upload|}}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Drogowski|Presentation on Censoring the Bitcoin Community:
How has Bitcointalk.org changed its policies, norms and architecture in response to the departure of its elusive founder Nakamoto?|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Final_Project_Presentation_on_Bitcointalk.org.pptx|}}
[[[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 15:54, 6 May 2014 (EDT)]}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Twood|Wordgraphic — They're Not Gonna Take It: YouTube's Control Of The Anime Mashup Community.|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Extra_Credit_Assignment.jpg|}} [[User:Twood|Twood]] 16:09, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2014-04-22T17:22:12Z

Twood: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Margo Monroe|Controlling our personal genomes|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Monroe_Assignment_Four.docx]]}}
([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 08:21, 1 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Philip Seyfi|Bounties and underrepresented topics|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment4.pdf]]}}
([[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 04:52, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 09:01, 22 April 2014 (EDT)|Who Sets the Norm on Youtube Communities?|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assingment_4.docx]]}}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Self Help or Self Harm?: Tumblr's governance of its self harm community|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_FOUR.doc]]}}
([[[User:Castille|Castille]] 11:40, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|jkelly|Regulation of User Comments on Bitch Media|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_assignment4.odt]]}}
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:37, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Daniel Rogowski|Censoring the Bitcoin Community|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Bitcoin_Project,_Daniel_Rogowski.docx]]}}
([[[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 12:54, 22 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Psl|Crowd Control: PubMed Commons scientific forum|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:PSLAssignment4_DRAFT_withSupp.pdf]]}}
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 13:17, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Twood|They’re Not Gonna Take It: YouTube’s Control Of The Anime Mashup Community
|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_assignment_four_final_project_draft.doc]]}} [[User:Twood|Twood]] 13:22, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2014-04-15T19:26:20Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 15'''

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this 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? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; The whos and wheres of modern journalism

* [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://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://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-Executive_Summary.pdf Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities] (read executive summary, skim overview)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (Chapter 7)] (read 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?"))

; Threats and issues

* [http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-overview/ Amy Mitchell, The State of News Media 2014]

* [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)

* [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)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TRKPSmoZk Brendan Nyhan, Biases Abound] (about 15 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554 Yochai Benkler, The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case]

* [http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/01/12/atomization.html Jay Rosen, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press]

; New technologies and models

* [http://globe.mediameter.org/ Catherine D'Ignazio, Ali Hashmi, and Ethan Zuckerman, Mapping the (Boston) Globe] (play with the website)

* [http://banyanproject.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Banyan Project, Introduction and Overview]

* [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/111660-muckrock-city/ Chris Faraone, MuckRock City (''Boston Phoenix'')]

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/from-cold-calls-to-community-building-propublica-tries-to-make-crowdsourcing-more-meaningful/ Adrienne LaFrance, From Cold Calls to Community Building, ProPublica Tries to Make Crowdsourcing More Meaningful (''Nieman Journalism Lab'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZAIrDI66E&playnext=1&list=PL1E8598023D37F7AC&feature=results_video Jonathan Zittrain, 2009 Richard S. Salant Lecture on Freedom of the Press] (the lecture starts at 19:45)

* [http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/syria_not_orphan_boy_pic.php?page=1 Sara Morrison, The Photo That Cried Wolf]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

The physical newspaper has been long from my doorstep for quite some time now, as I suspect this is the same for many others as well. According to the article 'Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities" 13,400 job losses in newspaper newsrooms across the country seems pretty substantial – So, what are we heading towards, the end of type written print physical and virtual as w know it? Or are we becoming willing participants to those who have smartphones and the like regarding instant video information?? I mean we are a video induced entranced society and there seems no way from turning back – so our news someday will only be what we see without any captions at all just the video feed – Yes, I am sounding a little over dramatic, but it seems that is the likely outcome we are heading for… Imagine getting news like the newspapers of old, but with no video feeds, just a picture or two and then a nice written scholarly column – that is unbiased… Hold on I think I’ll just take the video bites and form my own opinion – The fact that newspapers used to be objective and not necessarily so politically driven as they are today (websites included here), really depicts the state of information that we are in now, for better or worse.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 14:02, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I believe that underlying the effects of modern media and why the Internet weakens press and publishers is the digital divide. The digital divide magnifies disparities within countries and between them having an important effect on the distribution and consumption of quality news. New media may have lowered the barriers to entry for information channels but has raised barriers to entry for the digitally underserved or digital illiterate public news consumers. I believe this is a main concern that should not be underestimated when analyzing the media transformations in the Internet Age.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 12:26, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I just came across this video about a different kind of censorship that is happening on Facebook:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g#t=392]
It's really interesting to consider that censorship is not only happening as a result of laws or terms of use, but now as a way of "forcing" people/companies to pay. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:12, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I'm very thankful for the readings on the implications of the new media revolution on the Fourth Amendment as it's an issue I've never thought about before. Indeed, if the laws are not appropriately updated, these changes could have a massive impact on the freedom of journalism. I wonder whether one way to work around the issue would be to form some form of unions that would encompass many individual amateur reporters, providing them with legal protection, but without limiting the freedoms of the individual participants.--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 13:14, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The Information Age and proliferation of media outlets seem to present a double-edged sword situation: while it's wonderful that we have access to a plethora of "news" from around the world and about whatever subjects in which we have a particular interest, there is also very little transparency in terms of the filters through which reporters and stations may be processing and delivering stories. By this I mean that there is no regulation to disclose what the stance of the company or organization might have, and how that stance might color the stories, which are generally presented as factual-- and indeed they may be-- but are oftentimes only offering one of many perspectives on an issue. Of course, maybe the solution is not to bind this freedom of speech with rules but instead to expect viewers to be intelligent enough to carry out their own research if they are so inclined. While this is a valid argument, is it "fair" to expect viewers to have to become reporters themselves? And what about the fact that the "truth" of a situation is virtually impossible to establish in many cases? Ultimately, all of the information available (or not available) is likely to leave the public either misinformed, blissfully ignorant of other points of view, or confused instead of truly informed.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 17:27, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

: There is a constant sense of urgency and ‘pride in the newsroom’ to be the first to unveil critical information in a developing story. I worked at ABC News in 2011 and everyone there could tell you who broke what information first against their competitors - CNN, NBC, etc, on almost any story they’ve worked on. While I don’t think this industry-race is any different before the internet age, I do think the pressure and urgency has upped the stakes. Now that a pool of captured-this-on-my-iPhone citizen journalists have entered the pool along with individual bloggers - it’s as if staying on top or getting critical information first has been causing numerous reporting blunders and mistakes from the big media companies that would have happened less frequently years ago. Almost every big name media company has learned a lesson the hard way about fact-checking in recent years. Accuracy will outweigh the race to finish in first place; but that is easier said than done within the industry [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:05, 14 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I think Brendan Nyhan's talk about biases lends some weight to the idea that new decentralized and less professional media outlets can be problematic. While I'm not as concerned as some people might be about a de-professionalization of media outlets (I'm sure there are many capable reporters, writers, editors, etc. than just those employed at major newspapers and other media outlets), I can understand why writers, editors, etc. in the media can benefit from a level of standard training. Learning best practices in order to avoid some of the issues Nyhan raises regarding readers' biases seems really important! Nyhan says that the technology we have at our disposal makes it easy to buttress our own views and ignore the ones we don't agree with (much like Sunstein's fears about the polarization of the blogosphere), so it's important that journalists don't encourage this behavior and type of thinking by the way they structure headlines and articles. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:38, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Jay Rosen's piece "Audience Atomization Overcome" balances some of the arguments made about problems with the changes occurring in traditional media outlets. It serves as a good reminder that, while newspapers and other traditional news media can do a great public service by holding the government and other large institutions accountable to the public, they also (intentionally or not) set the agenda at the inevitable cost of certain issues. He aptly points out that much as journalists like to think they can engage in their work without being political, the very act of choosing to write or not write about a topic is a political statement, or at the very least implies that the topic is worthy of public discourse. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:54, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

This is a little off topic, but for anyone who was particularly interested in the article on MuckRock and its FOIA requests, you should check out the work that Ryan Shapiro (a PhD candidate at MIT) is doing.[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/foia-ryan-shapiro-fbi-files-lawsuit] (Full disclosure- Ryan is a friend!) [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:08, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America; News and information as digital media come of age as well as other articles asert that that the small communities will may play crucial role and will may substitute the media in future, in other words the newspapers will die. But, I am pretty sure that media will survive, but will tranform into "digital" one, which means that in coming future there will be no paper formated media. TV, radio, official websites will play the same role as they do nowadays. The main power of official media is their professionalism, liability and accoutanability. On the contrary, the role of professional media will tremendously increase when there will be a lot of non-official, non-relaible sources of information. Media will accompany the goverment and legislation as they do now and play its "whatch dog" functions. I could bring the following example: one can know the legislation very well, even better than many lawyers...but, when it comes to court process, they will ask for assistance of lawyer (because he/she is a professional, not the amateur). The same scenario with media..One can read a lot of non-reliable news, but if there is a need for proof, they will go the official website of the professional media. Besides, media is always responsible for the published content, but "media typed communities" cannot held laible for anything, which will undermine their role in the social life of society. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 11:36, 15 April 2014 (EDT))

----

I can't help but wonder what percentage of web-native media entities are functioning as news aggregation websites rather than representing under-reported items. There are surely gaps in the traditional media, especially on the local level; however many of the sites function as repeaters of a particular political or ideological viewpoint. Eye traffic appears so much easier to attract with the current model that we are neglecting a true opportunity. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 15:11, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

:I am so glad you asked that! I just published a report that looks at the 500 matters that my online journalism referral clinic here at Berkman has helped where, among other things, we looked at this exact question. Turns out the overwhelming majority of the people we helped were original content creators, despite our intake criteria not limiting our work to creators vs. aggregation clients. I'll talk more about it in class today, but you can see the report [http://www.dmlp.org/omln500/ here]. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:17, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Playing with 'Mapping the Globe' was pretty fascinating. The extent to which editors and writers control our knowledge of the news (and framing our conversations) really can be worrisome, depending on the source. This topic is very close to home for me, as a web writer. There's always a small inherent bias in journalism, no matter how hard you attempt to be objective — in a sense, merely the act of choosing to cover one story over another is employing some sort of bias. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:26, 15 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance

2014-04-08T13:31:39Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 8'''

Last week we looked at big-picture concepts of privacy and how the Internet and Internet companies reflect these issues. This week we dive into the specific question of surveillance by governments: how the Internet allows governments to observe their (and other governments') citizens, and what that does to us and the Internet as a system.

Joining us for this week are Berkman fellow and online security expert [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/bschneier Bruce Schneier] and Berkman Clinical Instructional Fellow [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/cwalsh Kit Walsh].

There is a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/04/unownedinternet related event] at Harvard Law School earlier on this class day that may be of interest to students (RSVP required).

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Government vs. Corporate Surveillance

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/ Brian Fung, Yes, There Is Actually a Huge Difference Between Government and Corporate Surveillance]

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/the_trajectorie.html Bruce Schneier, The Trajectories of Government and Corporate Surveillance]

* [http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Letter-Effect-of-mass-surveillance-on-journalism.pdf Emily Bell et al., Comment to Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies Regarding the Effects of Mass Surveillance on the Practice of Journalism] (pages 9-12 ("Mass surveillance raises issues beyond individual surveillance," "Secret and confusing law," and "Chilling Effects") only)

; Case Study - the NSA Scandal and Surveillance Policy

* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1 The Guardian, NSA Surveillance Revelations Decoded] (peruse)

* [https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline Electronic Frontier Foundation, Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying] (peruse)

* [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacks Jack Goldsmith, We Need an Invasive NSA]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/01/edward_snowden_doesn_t_deserve_clemency_the_nsa_leaker_hasn_t_proved_he.single.html Fred Kaplan, Why Snowden Won't (and Shouldn't) Get Clemency]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0d_QDgl3gI Bruce Schneier, The Battle for Power on the Internet] (approx. 12:30, watch all)

; Surveillance and U.S. law

* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/nsas-spying-powers-reading-statute Kit Walsh, The NSA's Spying Powers: Reading the Statute]

* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/23/laura-donohues-comprehensive-case-bulk-metadata-collection/ Steve Vladeck, Laura Donohue's Comprehensive Case Against Bulk Metadata Collection]

:* If you're interested, the Donohue article can be found [http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Just-Security-Donohue-PDF.pdf here].

== Optional Readings ==

* The Jennifer Granick / Orin Kerr debates on metadata and the Fourth Amendment

:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/metadata-fourth-amendment/ Granick's opening]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/23/debate-metadata-fourth-amendment-reply-jennifer-granick/ Kerr's response]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/metadata-4a-round2-jg/ Granick's reply]
:* [http://justsecurity.org/2013/09/27/debate-round-2-metadata-fourth-amendment-response/ Kerr's sur-reply]

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_limitations.html Bruce Schneier, The Limitations of Intelligence]

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

Maybe I'm missing something, but what, exactly, has the government been doing with the information they have gotten through the NSA? It doesn't seem like they've been using it to incriminate individual citizens or even monitor them too extensively-- otherwise, wouldn't they have been able to track down would-be criminals prior to them committing crimes, a la Minority Report? They also don't seem to be monitoring it for the purpose of censorship, as is the case in China and Russia or the HUAC. And how are they even conducting their "research"? Do individuals actually go through all of that information, or is it a case whereby a machine compiles data and directs NSA employees' attentions only to cases where there are a multitude of 'questionable' searches/calls/etc.? As far as foreign policy is concerned, the act of spying on other governments has been practiced since the beginning of history. Does the advent of technology change what is acceptable in regards to spying, or only make it more accessible? With nuclear war so very possible in our times, it seems like some sort of action must be taken to monitor the intentions of other countries and their relations with the US and alliances with other countries, since transparency seems to be an impossible ideal for all countries.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:52, 5 April 2014 (EDT)

:* The problem is that we don't know what they do with the information because that is secret, and is also used for secret trials in secret courts. The problem is that even if the use of the information is benevolent and well-intentioned, it is worrisome because we're creating the technological foundation for totalitarianism. Now, I don't actually think we're extremely close to creating a totalitarian state but it doesn't mean that it isn't worrisome or that in the wrong political environment we might eventually get there. [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 08:25, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

The Guardian article- informative content, but I want to comment on its amazing user interface. This is where the web should be heading. In the same way that HTML provides markup to words and sentences, the interactive features of this article help to mark up the thoughts & ideas presented in the article. Very nicely done. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:55, 6 April 2014 (EDT)

----

I am very interested to see what new data mining policies are made or both the government and corporations. Despite the reveal that we lack privacy (collection of lots of personal data from each sector), it would be nice if we had the right to know which data and on what terms data is collected on us. Agreed these are probably in the majority of privacy agreements I don't read. Trying harder to be transparent and clear with these privacy regulations would help society to at least be not as shocked by large government leaks.
([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 17:58, 7 April 2014 (EDT))

----

The Brian Fung article makes a fine point about the higher "cost" of switching from the United States to a different country, due to the government's monopoly on a range of services. However, this strikes me as a weak way to compare corporate data mining to government intrusion. In my opinion, the purpose of having a Constitution containing guaranteed rights is so that these costs need not be considered or incurred in the first place. If the US government needs to collect private information about its citizens, then it needs to be done within the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment. If exceptions need to be made it needs to be done with the public's knowledge and consent. [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 08:35, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Regarding the 'huge difference between government and corporate surveillance.' | There's so much to talk about on this topic, so I'll keep it short by playing a bit of devil's advocate. Is there truly that much of a significant difference between the two surveillance types? Both are working towards the same goal: the protection and accumulation of dollars. In the corporate sense, surveillance allows for the ability to make more dollars. With government surveillance, it allows for the preservation of the capitalist system — to maintain the corporate ecosystem. (Hence the argument that corporations still have a stronghold on our online privacy, regardless of who is responsible for the act of surveillance.) [[User:Twood|Twood]] 09:31, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

----

Assignment 3 Submissions

2014-04-01T19:44:55Z

Twood: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''''Please note that the deadline for this assignment has moved from March 25th to April 1st.'''''

This assignment is due on April 1st. 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:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:

<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

And if you're feeling very adventurous, you may also use some new templates for comments and responses:

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:

<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''If you are not using the comment boxes, 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==
----

{{AssignmentInfo|Daniel Rogowski|Censorship on Bitcoin's Forum|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Drogowski_assignment_3.docx}}[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:23, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----
{{AssignmentInfo|Akk22|Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions |
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Assignment3.docx]]}}
[[User:Akk22]]

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Dan Coronado|Examining forum control policies at Anandtech.com – the good, the bad and the ugly!|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dancoron_Assignment3.docx]]}}
[[User:Dancoron]]

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Castille Rath|Tumblr's Self-Harm Blogs|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_THREE.doc]]}}
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 11:52, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----
{{AssignmentInfo|Jane Kelly|Bitch Media's Comment Policy & User Behavior|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_assignment3.odt}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Watson|Assignment 3 Project Outline|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_assignment3.docx}}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Margo Monroe|Controlling our personal genomes|
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Assignment3Outline_Monroe.docx]]}}
([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 08:21, 1 April 2014 (EDT))

----

{{AssignmentInfo|PSL|PubMed Commons|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Psl_Assignment3Outline.pdf}}
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:34, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo| [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:58, 1 April 2014 (EDT) |An Analysis of Two Youtube Communities and Norms|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU_Assingment_3.docx}}

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Philip Seyfi|Reputation systems and unbalanced communities|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment3_%281%29.pdf}}
[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 14:00, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

----

{{AssignmentInfo|VACYBER|The DEFCON Hacker Community: a response to the recent leaks of increased governmental surveillance?|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/VACYBER_Assignment_3.pdf}}
[[User:VACYBER]]

----

{{AssignmentInfo|MikeJohnson| Twitch Plays Pokémon - How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment3.pdf}}
[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson 15:22, 1 April 2014 (EDT)]]

----

{{AssignmentInfo|Twood|YouTube’s Independent Music Communities: Mechanisms and Effects of Control|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment3.docx}}

----

Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2014-03-25T19:25:21Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 25'''

Beyond merely providing a forum for political activism, scholars are increasingly aware of the benefits the Internet provides as a mode of production. How can the Internet help us make things together? How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? And finally, what are the risks to producers (and society) inherent to peer production?

Joining us this week is [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director for the Berkman Center.

== Assignments ==

'''''The deadline for [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] has moved from March 25th to April 1st.''''' All other deadlines will not change.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

; Development from the edges

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

; Development as a crowd

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

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

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

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

; Crowd intelligence

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

----

COMMENTS ON "Jerome Hergeaux, Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy: Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia"

Coming from an operations research background, I find the application of game theoretic approaches to this project rather interesting. However, there are other aspects which were not taken into account. For example, the utility of social recognition derived by contributors to Wikipedia can be obtained at significantly reduced cost and risk compared to other options like authoring a book or publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the results are immediate so the perceived utility is also immediate.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:40, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

QUALITY OF CONTENT FROM PEER PRODUCTION IN WIKIPEDIA

Because Wikipedia content lacks originality and are mostly copied from other sources, I beg to differ on the usefulness of mentioning contributions to Wikipedia in one's resume. Real scholars would rather contribute to peer-reviewed journals where the benefits are far greater, including promotion and salary increase if working in an academic institution. So while Wikipedia content may be useful to the general public, the quality of the content may not be of high academic value.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 09:17, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I think that one of the great examples of Democratizing Innovation are games... A number of highly successful games have been initially created as mods developed by gamers, and later turned into commercial products by the companies whose games were built upon... Some examples off the top of my head include many Half Life/Source engine based multiplayer games, DotA - originally based on Warcraft III, or, outside of video games, the many unofficial rulebooks, expansions and modifications of Dungeons & Dragons or some of the Wizards of the Coast's collectible card games. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 10:24, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL OPEN COLLABORATION NETWORK

SETi@HOME gave me an idea to enhance air transport safety. The case of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 might have been more clear if air traffic is also being monitored by air control gamers and air traffic control towers can receive alerts, comments, and suggested routings from these gamers in real-time over the internet. For this to be possible, satellite and transponder data from all aircrafts need to be available, also in real-time over the internet, to the gamers. Software programmers can also develop new codes which can analyze traffic patterns or which can make predictions of flight paths based on current and new vectors using the real-time data.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:02, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

PEER PRODUCTION BY AMSAT ENTHUSIASTS OF SECOND INTERNET

When I read how I could access internet for free via the AMSAT satellites, I decided to get the amateur radio license (call sign KC9HKA) while in West Lafayette, IN. I was just curious to find out latest information about AMSAT and found this:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Chaos-Computer-Club-Hackerspace-Global-Grid-SOPA-Protect-IP-Nick-Farr,news-13742.html

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:26, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

I will have to look into the AMSAT satellites. Just recently we were discussing an article that appeared in the Daily Mail regarding an "OuterNet."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2552177/Forget-Internet-soon-OUTERNET-Company-plans-beam-free-wi-fi-person-Earth-space.html

The collaboration of people who "tinker" with technology is a fascinating subject. It remains much easier to verify results than from within the academic write-ups. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:23, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

:: I like this kind of news! I often tell colleagues at my office that "If you can't do it, it is expensive; if you know how to do it, it can be free!" While in the "Optimization in Aerospace Engineering" class as a aeronautical/astronautucal graduate student at Purdue University, I did a project to ascertain the viability of launching low orbit satellites (LEOs). The traditional thinking then was that it is too expensive and rockets typically carry more than a single payload. But calculations showed that it is economically viable to launch single payload of lightweight LEO. Such a project is crucial for education of the poor because the poor have limited or no access to the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:04, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

Thus far, most "peer production" has been limited to the entirely digital world. I'm interested in the intersection between peer-production and the emerging technology of 3D printing. It seems to me that most of the things sold on etsy.com could be printed by a 3D printer; there are even technologies emerging that allow printing of electronic circuits (e.g., the Kickstarter EX project). Clothing seems like one of the first things that could be a mass-market success for 3D printing. It seems like there's a huge range of new issues that will emerge, not only in the area of intellectual property but also things like product liability, etc. Once the technology exists on a massive scale at consumer homes, it seems like some of the same things that promote prosocial peer-production behavior, as discussed by the writers/speakers in this section, could unleash even more world-changing innovation once it includes the world of physical goods.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 14:18, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

----

The idea that crowd intelligence boosts the wisdom of the whole seems completely intuitive....and yet research does suggest (strongly) that people are more creative/innovative when they work alone. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] Mind you, it could be that people are individually more creative, and then when they put these individual efforts together, the strength of that innovation is heightened…. And perhaps it's dependant upon what it is that is actually being produced. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 25 March 2014 (EDT)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-03-04T20:02:51Z

Twood: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on February 25. 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 5 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!

----

*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Hey Jolie! You picked a really fascinating topic to cover! Just a few thoughts I hope will help. How do you plan on pinpointing how all the users behave differently, just because there are so many registered accounts you might be able to find people who behave nearly the same or certain individuals who have accounts on both Instagram and Flickr. Just as a mere suggestion maybe you can find a niche that is unique to each site and compare them? Maybe Instagram has thousands of pictures of food and seflis while Flickr has more professional content? I hope this will help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:15, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::I really like your topic to dive into why Instagram has been so successful compared to Flicker. It may be interesting to compare the age groups of each users. Instagram seems more accessible because it is a phone app that is simple and immediate to use, whereas Flicker users upload a batch of vacation photos, etc. I like Emmanuel's suggestion to compare the content between users. Another suggestion which relates to the selfies/food photos may be to compare the users themselves. I think older people tend to use Flickr and therefore may not post as much. However, younger people (who no long user facebook) posting to instagram all the time would provide a way for facebook to get back that market. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:31, 2 March 2014 (EST))

::Hi Jolie: This is a very interesting topic, with many possible areas focus on! (Also, a nice mix between the tech and creative worlds.) You mentioned that Instagram and Flickr diverge where mobile apps are concerned. This looked particularly interesting, especially following the Flickr app's overhaul. Anecdotally, via Twitter, it looked as though the Flickr update was a major talking point in both the Instagram and Flickr user groups. My thought was that it may be interesting to look at whether this major app update had any bearing on either of the two communities, as it may have impacted some of your research questions. Best! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 09:33, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Jolie, good choice of topic. Flickr and Instagram are great examples of user generated content applications where control practices play a integral part. I like your idea to compare and contrast the sites. Also, I think it's insightful how you noted that Flickr has been around longer but is not as successful, and your desire to find out why, Instagram is more successful. That question I think, leads you into a analysis of the successful tactics of each site. However, instead of viewing their success in light of stock prices as is usually done, in keeping with our class theme it seems that you will ask how do the sites control practices help with their success or failure. Perhaps as you look for those answers, you may find some trends that other companies may want to emulate or avoid to make their sites/apps successful. Your research could lead to consulting work for you! All the best on your project.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:43, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:: Hello Jolie, very interesting topic choice, both Flickr and Instagram represent emerging content applications that are quite popular. My one concern with your topic would be your question pertaining to the behavior of users on the site. Both Flickr and Instagram are massive sites and would be very difficult to mine for information without some type of selection bias. Have you considered sourcing a third-party site that tracks information on these two applications? Possibly a forum about rules for these two sites? I just think it would be a very daunting task to use Flickr and Instagram as your sources. I can't wait to see the final result, good luck. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:05, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Daniel,
What an interesting topic! I was not even aware that state governments recognized these currencies. Would you be able to come up with more material if you focus on one or two countries and their reaction to the online currency? Also Ichua gave great advice; maybe one country’s reaction and policies to multiple online currencies would help in the scope of observation. Your idea of creating a website to report and share your findings is really novel! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

:: Very interesting topic Daniel. Ive been following the progress of Bitcoin as a personal interest. Apart from the regulatory challenges Bitcoin poses for Governments, its also vulnerable to cyber attacks which can erode trust in using the currency. Whilst the actual Bitcoin itself is heavily encrypted, the Bitcoin exchanges are vulnerable to hacking and cyber theft as evidenced recently by the successful attacks on Mt Gox, one of the world's largest Bitcoin exchanges. It would be interesting to observe the effect (if any) this would have on the regulatory view of the currency by Governments. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Daniel, you've picked an interesting, and narrowly defined topic, and you have concrete steps for your methodology of answering the questions that you've come up with. I think you have a very good framework with which to start your project, all that's left is to fill in the blanks to the outline you've created for yourself. Good work up front. Also, presenting your project in website form is quite appropriate I think for your topic, it underscores your point in a way.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:55, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Great topic!! Have you considered discussing the ways in which bit coins are used for illegal purposes?(ex: The Silk Road- Where people can use bit coin to anonymously purchase illegal goods such as narcotics and firearms)
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 13:31, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Daniel: This really is a fantastic topic! Your research questions are very focused, which is great given the many ways you could run with the subject. I'm not certain if this will help, but: Here in Canada, there has been quite a lot of coverage regarding Bitcoin ATMs popping up. Here's one such article: http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-s-first-bitcoin-atm-now-accepting-cash-1.1688529. And another: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bitcoin-machine-comes-to-montreal-1.2525050. However, who knows how long these machines will remain in operation given the buzz now surrounding Canadian banking self-regulations: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/19/bitcoin-bank-of-montreal_n_4817319.html. Looking forward to reading more. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:37, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi, Marissa! I used AirBnB to rent out my apartment last summer and it actually resulted in me being robbed by the person to the tune of $10,000-- not including the rent for the summer, which he didn't pay (I didn't get any of it back, either, despite the insurance). It was a nasty situation. Anyways, from what I understand, the majority of communication on AirBnB is done privately. Without staging anything or intervening, how do you plan to observe enough to answer your question(s)? I think this is basically the same concern with one of the other treatments I read, regarding Facebook. I do think the security of platforms like AirBnB is of great concern and would be a very interesting subject to study in depth![[User:Castille|Castille]] 21:16, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Marissa,
I loved the idea for your prospectus! Just as a suggestion, would you consider comparing a few corresponding sites like 9flats, Couchsurfing International, or Hospitality Club? You could analyze how they handle different verifiability and security issues while also comparing how the sites are constructed to better “vet” their users. This may yield insight on how trustworthy their users are to each other. You might even want to inquire if one has had “major” legal issues in the past. I hope this helps! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:32, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----
Greetings Marissa!

Your topic is very interesting and it appears we have a few of the same elements in the companies we have selected to research: Verification and trust. From what I understand, you are addressing issues of users on auction/garage sale platforms surrounding the tiers of user verifiability. In other words, who is protecting one user from being taken advantage of by another user.

The comment you posted on the wiki under my topic in regards to the effectiveness of how the sites that I have selected deal with inaccurate comments made about companies by the general public are dealt with is of great importance-the public can ruin a business for no other reason than spite. In other words, who protects the companies from users.

The proposal you submitted intrigues me in many ways. By studying the community of airbnb.com, it appears you will be analyzing the controls implemented to make the site successful (verification, quality feedback, security, payment, userability and collaboration).

In summary, it appears we are both working on protection issues, and if the verification process is significant enough to gain consumer trust.

Would you mind if I ask how you plan to analyze the user? I would be interested in your methodology, and we may even find each other’s approach helpful to each other. We may even be able to compare and contrast the communities with a similar approach and work together if you would be interested.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:18, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Marissa, great topic! You are hitting on many of the themes of the class with your proposal. One thing I thought about when reading your prospectus was how this collaborative way of business could be a model for types of activities. This community type platform that you are studying could be used in other settings that could help communities to work more closely together by sharing resources, and collaborating when they need to buy and sell things. Perhaps, your research will highlight the ways that these communities are successful and not successful. And furthermore, your research could highlight the processes that other businesses and governments could take to emulate the best of these sites(indirectly by from the behavior and processes you observe). I know that this is not necessarily what your research will be focused on but perhaps a social scientist or entrepreneur reading your final project with find tools within your analysis to help them to build something we might not have seen before. All the best on in your work![[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:19, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

Dear Melissa,
What a great topic and area of coverage!!! I’m hoping my comments and questions will be of help to you! Which site succumbs more readily to outside pressure and take down requests? Also you mentioned that a susceptible compliant to both is that they are accused of not “vetting” their sources. You could possible test to see which one (if either of them do) checks them more thoroughly. This might be, and I know nothing about it, accomplished by putting posts of your own and noting if they require any amount of proof, citation, source, or quote of any kind. I really hope this helps you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:35, 1 March 2014 (EST)

Thank you so much Emmanuel! Your ideas are superb and very helpful!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Melissa, these sites can be a boon for consumers in helping to identify unscrupulous businesses and thus avoiding them. The issue that I find with these sites, that's never been effectively dealt with, is how do they identify and remove potentially inaccurate comments attacking a business as a result of say, a personal vendetta by a disgruntled employee or a customer who was unreasonable. Many small and medium size businesses rely on word of mouth for new customers. If the site allows the comments to remain, it may affect the business. This in effect may lead to possible blackmail of businesses by threatening to post inaccurate information on these sites. I'm also very interested in the sample groups and postings that you choose. Great topic! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marissa, Excellent insight and the problems posed are valid. Your questions are helping to me and assist in narrowing the topic-which is clearly too broad at the moment.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Melissa, Just a quick note, because I loved your prospectus so much (it's such a creative take on the assignment, but still seems to hit on all the prof's requirements, really amazing job). With your '''Q1''', ''Why would one site be more popular?''- I can;t help but wonder, does the fact that it has such a simple, perfect 1-word URL have any effect? Also, due to the time (2007) & place (USA) I automatically assumed this website was somehow related to Obama's election campaign- though from quick Google search there doesn't seem to be any direct link. Anyways, just wanted to say, I really like your prospectus. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:49, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

:Hey Mike, it would absolutely be my pleasure to provide feedback to you. I won't go too far before having the time to focus & read it completely- so my first feedback to you is: if you didn't pick such an interesting topic, I would have actually read the full prospectus. However after reading your first paragraph, I ended up watching TPP and reading its subreddit and forgot to finish reading your prospectus! hahaha. But this weekend I'll spend time focusing and try to provide you feedback, hopefully as good as the feedback you gave me (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 10:34, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi Mike! After reading [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]]'s comments below, I'm kinda worried about posting my comments, cus I think I understood your questions from a different point of view.
::*First of all, my question- how do you approach your 2nd qualitative question? I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by vulnerability.
::*Second, my advice, feel free to take it or leave it: to keep within scope of this project (2500 word paper seems so short!), I believe it may be easier to tackle Qualitative questions #1 & 3, and your second quantitative question (''Has it helped or hurt the game to impose such controls?''). I get the impression that these questions would be the ones that would be easiest to answer from following the community discussion on the subreddit. That being said, if we were writing 8000 word papers, it would be so much fun for you to really dive into the architecture & UX of the game itself, while paralleling it with the subreddit(!!!). Really awesome topic & prospectus.
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:After reading your prospectus, I have a few questions based on your questions, or maybe some questions that combine the ones you already have. It seems clear from what you write in your prospectus that the user experience is absolutely vulnerable to the controls imposed by the game, but I'm curious to know in what ways. Were users bumping up against controls they didn't like before there were changes, or was it only after the controls of the creator were made clear (he made himself known in an explicit way, rather than operating quietly in the background) that users began to find fault? (Another way of thinking about this might be- were a lot of users thinking about the controls imposed by the game before the creator's changes forced them to think about it?) If I understand the current set up correctly, it seems that users still have the option to have commands parsed as they go instead of waiting for them to be tallied and then implemented. So, were the controls only seen as problematic once users considered that there was one person making a decision that affected every user? Is the lack of democratic decision-making behind the scenes a bigger problem for users than the actual changes in user experience?

:As far as your quantitative question goes, I'm wondering if there's any way for you to know how many users stopped playing the game after the creator made changes? Do you have a means of seeing the changes over time? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

Dear Michael,
I find your prospective very interesting! I thought to give you these few suggestions. I hope they will help! You might want to see what percentage of Flickr users are a part of the Creative Commons community and whether it consists of a majority or a minority. Another area of research might be into the other forms of control that Flickr uses to protect copyrighted material, and then to compare them with Creative Commons to see if they are as effective, prevalent, or well known. Also, when there are infringements in copyright policy, do people respond to correction or do they just ignore and continue violating the rules? Lastly, how does the Creative Commons community handle repeat violators (if there are any)? Wish you the best! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:43, 1 March 2014 (EST)

You've mentioned architectural methods used to encourage correct attribution, but another architectural detail to consider is how and whether Flickr encourages users to publish their content under (cc) as opposed to (c) and if so, whether the users are in fact aware of the rights they retain and give away. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:28, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Hi Michael: I think this is an interesting and nicely focused way to examine Creative Commons — through one very robust example. And even if you don't end up using a comparison of communities in your final project, my thinking is that it may be worth doing a comparison, even for your own purposes. Perhaps a comparison with another leviathan of online Creative Commons, like a YouTube or Vimeo. Because, although their systems aren't perfect, the act of comparing and contrasting may offer some perspective. Just a thought. Hopefully it helps! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:02, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Lucia, This is looks to be very interesting - I was wondering if you can be more specific on what types of data the initiative is exploring. Are they looking for statistical data mainly, do you vote on what subjects you are going to put on the website or research? It looks like a great example of policy control via the government. I would to know more about the website and its overall goals - something that helps define its missions parameters, as I visited the website main page and got an idea of what they were saying - I am just needing some more clarity that's all. But again, the subject looks like a great idea and should be very interesting...[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 18:48, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Lucía!
I think your choice of study fits perfectly with the theme of the course! Perhaps you can also investigate to see if they are stifling public opinion or whether they are flooding the docs with pro-government voices to influence the theme towards their agenda? Also as a suggestion, can you see if it is truly open to everyone? Maybe you would like to find another similar program that the government has tried in the past (assuming that they have tried). Do the number of participants fluxuate? Is there a trend in what the government sees as inappropriate? Or is it just random edits that are corrected by the government? I hope these comments can help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:13, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:I second Jkelly's comment. This look very intriguing and I'd like to learn more about your plans for the project! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 23:14, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:Third. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 11:58, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hello, Dan! Admittedly, I had never heard of “Anandtech.com” prior to reading your prospectus, but I’m glad that you told me about it. I really like their “Cable TVification” assessment of the internet in recent years. After reading your prospectus it seems to me that you are focusing on Lessig’s norms as regulators within the site’s forums, as well as “laws" instituted by the website. It is an interesting subject, because as you say, this particular forum is very successful in fostering an environment where users are likely to return. That said, I see that you qualify users of the site as “good,” and I’m curious to know how you will operationalize this term for your project. You mention words like “courteous” and “helpful,” but I’m wondering: what characteristics do you think you will look for when observing, in order to qualify a “good user.” For comparison, do you have an example of what behavior that “bad” users might entail? Lastly, I see that there are literally millions of post on the forum; you may wish to focus on a specific topic and/or date range in order to have a more manageable data set to observe. I’m interested to see what you’re project will entail, especially being that I am also observing forums for my project. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Vance, thanks for taking the time to look at my prospectus - Basically, what I meant to convey is that these are the characteristics of a "good" website, a website that demonstrates use and activity to by the administrators and its members/users. What I will be focusing in on is, how is the site's control policy administered and conveyed to its members, both historically and presently, through the links in my prospectus – and to answer your question about bad behavior in online forums, yes I will, as I think that is a critical component regarding context – And this also goes out too Marissa as well, what I really wanted to focus in on was how does bad behavior and is control policies in its forums, effect a webite economically - as I think ths would even go further towards Lessig's FOUR norms of regulation on where the dot lands - but for obvious reasons, that could end up being too big. However, I still might toss something like that in - My goal is to pick out a couple of instances of the control poliy being implemented and see what the results were based on specific incident/instance was there a ban and how long was it for - what was the reason, what was the community's response to that action and so forth... - Again, thanks for the input and suggestions.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Dan, forums have proven very useful mediums for learning and troubleshooting. What would be interesting is how forums deal with covert advertising I.e. Forum posters who may be businesses, subtly advertising their own goods or services under the guise of responding to threads without paying for advertising rights. Would paid advertisers pose potential conflicts of interest to the neutrality of forums? I'd also be interested in seeing how you compare the Anandtech's forum controls against others. Would you choose similar types of forums with respect to content type? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marrisa, I tried to include your response with Vance's up top :O) [[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Dan!
If you are mainly comparing Anandtech’s forum site policies, maybe you could also compare past versions of the rules? Also, you might want to see if Anandtech has any unique features in toxicity control that would make it standout from other less successful forums. Overall the concept is fantastic! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hi Emmanuel, thanks for the feedback - ya, I am going to try and put some type of onus on Anandtech as well, and see if some of their reactions to their policies could be considered a little over zealous or a bit too far reaching. Most times, their admins/moderators are pretty decent, but again, like everyone else, there are times when a few of their admins/moderators could be having a bad day and maybe be a little too heavy handed - we'll see, stay tuned to find out. just a little humor :o) Thanks again for the input.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:I also love the topic and find the subject very interesting! I share Castille's concerns above. It seems challenging to get access to the materials you will need to answer these questions. I wonder if there is an open forum somewhere in the internet where angry divorcees can go to vent about how social media ruined their marriage? It may be a biased site, but it may provide resources to other statistics or materials that may help? Or if there is a community you could observe and monitor the degree of online flirting? ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:48, 2 March 2014 (EST))

Wow very cool subject - and one I am sure that deserves a lot of attention these days. With that said, it seems that this subject matter could be a thesis or dissertation as the material collected probably seems to be endless. I was wondering what specific community are you going to target on facebook, as this looks to be potentially a very large paper? I have to admit that I am fascinated to see what other statistics this might uncover, as I am sure we all have heard stories of spouses leaving their significant other for someone they met online. Yet maybe, you can focus on something more specific then a facebook community - as there might be other communities or even forums that have support groups for such instances or circumstances that you mentioned earlier. Maybe seeing how they interact with each other and what rules or policies can be observed and commented on. Overall the topic is really great and I am sure it will have some very interesting content that is fascinating.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:13, 2 March 2014 (EST)

:Your title choice definitely catches the eye and I think you are on to a very interesting subject choice here. I am going to echo the sentiment of a few others here who have pointed out that you may want to explore other forums for gathering information. I think a facebook community would be difficult to uncover what you are looking for. Is there a blog somewhere in which people go to ask advice in dealing with such issues? If this really contributes to 60% of divorces I am sure there are more sites out there that you can leverage for your research. It also seems to me like you are hinting at two different subjects, the first being pornography and divorce, the second being social media and divorce (in particular facebook). I would reccommend sticking to the first subject, not only is it more unique, but it also removes the issue associated with using facebook as a source (I think we were asked to avoid it). I think you have a great start here and can't wait to see the final result. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 13:56, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----
Very interesting subject matter Amy!

You may have selected one of the most controversial and highly emotional subjects out of all proposals presented. I would agree with Dancoron. The questions outlined could lead to a doctoral dissertation. Additionally, Castille does bring a good point to light, in that we are encouraged to avoid any work as an “alias”.

I think many of us are having trouble (to include myself) narrowing the research down to a tolerable amount of data collection for an in depth analysis.

In your proposal, you suggested comparing and contrasting divorce rates. What sources would you be comparing and contrasting? Are you speaking to different communities in the United States or on a larger level? Or, are you addressing the male/female divorce ratio?

Secondly, will you be cross-examining two nations who have access to Facebook, in efforts to compare and contrast divorce ratios in direct correlation to Facebook usage?

If your research goals are to use Facebook as the platform for study concerning divorce, it may be difficult to get access to this information unless you are accepted into a person’s profile, group or community. In efforts to stay objective, I don’t think you would want to study anyone that you personally know. Pornography could be a difficult study, in direct correlation to pornography with the controls Facebook allows for each individual user.

Would it be possible for you to follow a smaller, more open group that readily blogs/views pornography that is open to the public for data collection in a short period of time?

Unfortunately this is completely out of my arena. I have never been married and I don’t view porn sites. But, your topic is fabulously interesting.

Good luck with your research and I can’t wait to see your results.

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]! I love your topic. Your prospectus, combined with our brief discussions in class have really made me wonder- if 23andme is part of the first iteration of DNA decoding tools for personal use, where will we be in 25 years (: Just my general thoughts on this great topic- my comments specifically regarding your prospectus are below:
::*I really like that you asked whether the FDA is the best agency to regulate DNA testing, especially your last sentence ''what regulatory bodies outside of the FDA should be paying attention to this personalized and identifiable database?''. Throughout this class, I've had similar types of questions many times.
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, however it seems that the data you will collect (assessing changes in attitudes of community members) will be more apt to answer your 2nd question (''How has the ban on delivering health-related risk assessments to the 23andMe community impacted the consumer’s trust toward the product?''), rather than the underlined question that I referred to in my previous bullet.
:Please note that I am most interested in your underlined question regarding the FDA! However my advice is that your second question regarding attitudes & trust may be easier to study with respect to your methodology.
:[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST) - updated 03 March 2014 ~11pm

:It seems clear that although institutional positions and statements are mostly contrary to the patentability of human genes as such, however international patent offices (U.S., Europe, and Japan) have accepted the patenting of human DNA sequences if they meet the technical and legal requirements, including the “utility”. DNA occurs naturally in the human body and should not be patented by a single company that can then use its patents to limit scientific research and the free exchange of ideas. As said by Koepsell “Laws of patent are meant to be used to protect inventions — things that engineers are doing — not things that scientist discover” (Holman, 2007). A regulatory block of decoding tools for personal use would seem to be an exercise in economic control. I believe you'll find an ample supply of public opinion in regards to attitudes of community members. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 10:28, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-Margo- In relation to your topic, what is your opinion as to Apple recently integrating fingerprint scanners into the iPhone (5s)? Do you believe that Apple can store our personal information through this technology?
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 13:49, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:: Margo- Absolutely love the topic choice you've made. I recently took a course that focused on the ethics of biotechnology and found it to be one of the most intriguing topics I have studied. 23 & me is an excellent site to discuss in your work, as I am sure you are aware of the relationship between the site and google. There will be no shortage of sources for your research and I think judging from your prospectus you are off to an amazing start. If you would be interested in working together on this as a group project I would be very interested in collaborating with you. I would propose creating a website of our findings (which I can create) and can provide some additional insight on the topic. Please send me an email @ danielrogowski@fas.harvard.edu if that would interest you. Regards, Daniel. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:17, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Castille, fantastic topic! I like your approach to analysing this topic and its a subject which is very controversial & personal. I agree, the main challenge for any Government is to try and regulate the numerous blogs and hashtags on sites like Tumblr, effectively putting a suicide watch on them. Would this be an effective use of tax payer funds and how many suicides could this prevent? What would be the process be if a potential suicide victim was identified? We have to be careful not to act in a knee-jerk reaction when there is a death and expect the Government to do something about it. I think there needs to be a balance of responsibility between these site operators and the Government. I'm very interested in the outcome of your topic. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Castille --

This is such an excellent topic choice and it is so important for our society today, in particular for the youth and young vulnerable minds of our generation. The fact that the site changed its policy to allow blogs that engaged in "discussion, support, encouragement, and documenting the experiences of those dealing with difficult conditions like anorexia, bulimia, and other forms of self-injury” may actually make the policy more convoluted for the website than it had hoped. In one sense, it seems that they were making amends to promote free speech and also to allow healthy dialogue about such behaviors. However, there becomes a "grey line" as to what discussions are supportive or encouraging against such behaviors. For example, an element of perception is involved in that some users (particularly immature, younger generations) may view discussion boards about anorexic "experiences" as an enticement of curiosity to engage in such behaviors rather than to refrain from them. As your research unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the "new" policy fares amongst the users. Often times, it seems when a website makes a new policy, it is loosely "enforced" for a while and then it eventually dies out and goes back to square one. Maybe a compare and contrast of the impact before and after the two policies were enacted could be an interesting angle.

I am interested in how you would monitor the data from the group within or just as an outside observer? You mentioned that you would like to join the group (if that is allowed), and I am thinking of doing the same thing in my research. However, someone had mentioned that this may not be allowed or that we are not supposed to use an alias? It looks like we both need to clarify this part.

Great work and I look forward to seeing the results!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:14, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Greetings Watson!

A few questions:

How would you determine which distribution channel the Syrian opposition used the most?

How would you be able to detect the limitations of public information if it has not been disclosed?

If you were to select two media channels to compare/contrast, would there be enough data available in those two communities to properly “diagnose”, or is the data withheld from the public?

If you chart a paper on what capacitated the Syrian opposition groups to communicate their cause, will this information lead to a report or a true communal study on the Internet?

Very interesting proposal and I wish you the best in your research!

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:This is a very interesting topic. There is a lot to examine here, especially since a large part of the attacks and arguments happened online. An interesting topic would be to mention the Syrian Electronic Army and the many acts of online vandalism that they did. You can find more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Electronic_Army The Internet was certainly a tool in the conflict. An interesting focus would be to investigate their motives and the impact this electronic army had on the Syrian conflict.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:01, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Greetings, Watson!

I am intrigued by your topic because I truly believe that social media is becoming the new stomping ground for collective action and has incredible potential to spawn modern revolutions of many types. Have you considered comparing and contrasting how the Wall Street movement/protest was influenced by social media comparable to the events in Syria? I read an article a while back that discussed how the internet in Syria was literally shut down for several days and there was great speculation that this was actually an inside job to prevent the power of social media and communication. What a frightening and disturbing abuse of power! This act alone may show to a certain extent how the power of the internet and social media was suppressed by the regime. I wish I could recall the article but if I find it I will send it your way.

I am speculative that social media is more powerful than youtube in terms of collective action, but this is a conjecture. The youtube video tried in that Garcia vs. Google case was said to have prompted the entire uprising yet only about 500 people had actually viewed the video. It seems the video became a type of "figure" for the push and was used as more of a platform by the social media community to promote action even if most had not even seen the video. For better of worse, the "mob mentality" is alive and well on the internet. In any event, I am curious to see how your research pans out!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:33, 4 March 2014 (EST)

------

*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Laura – Instagram is not only the biggest mobile photo sharing app, but is also now owned by Facebook, and thus a disproportionate amount of mobile peer to peer communication falls to the censorship whims of this company. This is an incredibly worthy area to research, if not lofty. Since Instagram now allows direct, private communication of photos, you have to wonder if there is a difference in how moderated these communications are versus a post intended for the public that uses hashtags (let us not forget that the hashtag’s original use was searchability, not irony). That said it might be very difficult monitor the differences in speed and effectiveness of what gets censored without interfering with the community you’re observing. One way may be to follow news events (such as this recent one: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9448993) that show Instagram’s policy enforcement in action. The issue with that approach is that it is cherry picking the successful takedowns rather than observing uncensored posts that are breaking the terms of service. Another option may be monitoring Instagram’s list of banned hashtags and searching synonyms or alternate hashtags, but again this is a difficult aspect of their policy to observe in action.
::I believe there is still strategizing to be done to design your observation of the community, above merely reporting their policy. I hope my take somehow helps you with this endeavor!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 09:55, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Laura!

I am not familiar with Instagram but I know it is a very popular application with my friends and I feel out of the loop for not being involved with it. As you mention this application is extremely popular worldwide so studying the nodes of its infrastructure and the social norms, policies, etc. associated with it is a valiant effort for understanding our modern generation and evolving cyber world. Are there any particular rules or norms that you are aiming to target? For example, perhaps studying one specific violations related to pornography, harmful behavior, violence, etc. may help to narrow it down. I admit I am not familiar with Instagram, but I would imagine a site of this magnitude has a tremendously challenging struggle in policing such offenses. Is there a way for users to report offenses observed within the community? If so, I would be curious to know how often reports are filed and whether or not they are acted on. Many times, I feel that users on sites like this witness offensive material but refrain from acting on it because they do not believe their report will be followed-up on. It would be interesting (I know this would be difficult to do) to find which types of users are most judicious in filing reports on offensive behavior. For example, I would guess that the teenage generation is less concerned or bothered by offensive material that may have become immune to them in contrast to members of the older generation that have jumped on the social media bandwagon later in life.

Best of luck in your cyber adventure!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

:Hi Jon- My first thoughts on your prospectus have to do with scope. In comparing these three different games, I think there might be too many factors to consider-- subscription-based vs. free, PC vs. iOS, etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be more manageable to tackle your research questions if you focused in on two games that were more similar so that you have fewer variables to contend with when you're thinking about your research questions. My instinct is that working with WoW and League of Legends would work since you can still attempt to tackle each of Lessig's four forces. I'm not sure how much the law in the US varies from that in Finland, but removing Clash of Clans from the equation might help the narrow your scope in that sense as well. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:27, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Hi Ian, great topic and I like the innovative approach you're taking. I agree that social media is an important medium for Governments to gauge public mood or opinion. In fact, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott recently spent $4 million to analyse social media and gauge the public mood on certain policies he introduced. From my understanding, you're looking to build something like a mind map to organise the social media feedback and also meta tag it? This would effectively allow content to be searched and categorised similar to a knowledge base. Just a couple of questions though....How will you apply the cognitive map? Do you have a specific social media medium and Government in mind? Looking forward to reading the final outcome! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I was unaware of this community exits, and I think it will be a great place for graduate students and researchers to find which papers they should be reading. For example, if I need to utilize a method that is slightly outside of my field, this community will help identify the appropriate and esteemed papers. This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day). Because PubMed is already an exclusive database primarily for biomedical researchers, I am interested to what you observe. I am worried that because only pubmed users (or people using a University IP address) have access to pubmed articles, open access will play a minimal role in which articles spark more conversation. Unfortunately, people tend to converse about papers in high-impact journals like Nature and Science, and I would expect these articles to compete with the open access ones. Perhaps an observation of which articles receive complaints about not being open-access for the curious science lover who is no longer in academia may be an interesting perspective.. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 13:45, 2 March 2014 (EST))

:::Hi Paul! Thank you for introducing me to PubMed Commons! I have to agree with [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]: people who are 'allowed' to comment on PubMed articles often have access to most articles through their Universities or Institutions. That being said, since first reading your prospectus, I've thought so much about the access to PubMed Commons. In order to be part of the community, the major factor is that you are an author of a paper appearing in PubMed. An author can 'invite themselves' only if PubMed has your email address on file. For personal/professional interest of being a member of this site, I've checked with 8 different people (who are all corresponding authors on separate PubMed articles) whether they could invite themselves, and only 1 of the 8 authors could gain access. I understand why it is important for PubMed to confirm identity, however I believe this factor will strongly limit the adoption of PubMed Commons. It should also be noted that I am not an average PubMed author- most scientists I talked to about this think 'social media is stupid' or a waste of time. Very few will go through the trouble of asking 8 separate authors to try to log in, until they find one person who can. However, exactly as Margo pointed out, "This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day)".
:::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I can see where this topic would make an interesting focal point for a review article or commentary on the exploitation opportunities, (legal and criminal) that open source software packages like these permit. As an administrator of several IT systems myself, reading your prospectus has made me curious to learn more about NESSUS and Metasploit, and perhaps use them to test out weaknesses in my own servers.

::Let's continue along that thought...and say I will download and experiment with this software... I'm using this scenario "hypothetically" in hopes that it may help you focus more on the key question(s) you are hoping to answer, and to also consider "from where" you will be able to make some observations to address that question. In other words, where might you be able to follow some online community activity over the next few weeks, and observe some interactions between the users, developers, and IT administrators who work with these software packages?

::So, after just now learning of these open source packages, I want to download them on my Linux box and experiment. I want to see how others have installed, implemented, and customized the software to exploit a variety of possibilities. Is there an open community where I can lurk and maybe participate in a discussion to learn about various ways I can use this software to test out my servers for vulnerabilities and bugs? What kind of controls might I be subjected to within that community that may prevent me from discussing specifics about what known vulnerabilities have been discovered, and what security holes one can exploit? If I discover a major security flaw, can (or should) I document this within that online community? Are there normative, legal, and/or architectural controls that prevent or discourage divulging too much information within his community? I noticed a discussion forum at http://discussions.nessus.org/welcome, and https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit... would these be the communities you were considering?

::Anyway, hoping this helps out. I just wanted to raise these questions as a way to help you identify the specific online community where some observable activity will occur, and focus in on what controls you hope to be able to see playing-out during the rest of the semester. You may already have that in mind, but it wasn't in the prospectus, so I thought I'd raise the questions here. I think knowing the answer to these questions will help put the ideas into the context of the Final Project's objectives and should also help with the next task of building the outline in Assignment 3. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 14:25, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Twood. I find your paper topic to be incredibly interesting and well-thought out. I wish I had constructive criticism to give you, but I find that you are on the right path. My only question at the moment: how do you plan on measuring the response of community members to the each sites' control mechanisms? [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:41, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Twood, I find this to be a very cool topic and being a musician myself, makes it even more so. I have never ever been a fan of sampling music outright and then adding a new beat and some remixing to make it one's own, just not my style. I like the prospect of you examining a smaller or less commercialized community musically (as compared to You tube). Again, as own who owns small studio at home and records pretty solidly, it is always great to see musicians recording and producing their own stuff from scratch with small home studio setups. I hope you show an example of a community catching someone in the act of stealing another's music or idea and what the outcome of that interaction will be - because as musicians we always borrow, modify or improves someone else's cord progression or guitar lick to make it our own. So, it would be great to see if you could hint about that distinction - as I am sure it comes up a lot in communities like this. But, overall really nice topic to concentrate on.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----------

*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Cheikh, I'm looking forward to reading your paper. Online technology journalism is indeed a most interesting industry... after all, a tech journalist with sufficient influence can single-handedly kill an up and coming technology project with billions in R&D costs, and this is particularly worrying given how easy it is for a competing company with a sufficient budget to influence said journalists, as well as how often these journalists write reviews having used the product in questions for mere minutes, or without necessary expertise in the are where such product can be useful. That said, my suggestion to you is to narrow your topic to one single research question. At the moment, you paper risks going astray as you intend to cover a wide array of very different concerns. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:06, 4 March 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:You raise some great research questions to examine within these communities. You might want to narrow your focus more. Will you be talking about the legalities of “jail-breaking” and it’s effect on the Apple and Android market? Considering the topics we discussed in class, it might be interesting to develop your research to mention the view of major companies toward these forums and the rogue developers. Once an iphone is jail-broken, it losses its apple warranty coverage. This might be a topic you want to bring up with your research. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:36, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

Greetings Emmanuel,

You have selected a really “hot” topic. Mobile applications appear to be taking over actual web development these days. I’m in the process of creating a new site, for the general public, to locate assistance after they have been harmed by other entities. The developer of my site highly recommended that I create a mobile app at the same time. He is correct and the only reason I do not plan to follow his suggestion is directly related to cost.

I’m unclear of the real statistics, but Internet users seem to be using phones as their selected source of information more frequently than computers. Most people carry their phones (even to bed) but fewer seem to be in constant travel with their laptop.

I am not familiar with the sites you listed in your proposal since I am not a mobile application developer, but I am happy to learn there are forums to enhance applications through large communities.

It appears many of our classmates are attempting to use a compare/contrast approach, which seems logical, if we want to identify how resourceful one community is versus another. Your research will be extremely useful to many, and I would like to pass your results onto my developer after you have completed all the hard work (smile).

A few questions for you:

“I want to compare how useful and productive these web sites are to the users end for accomplishing these goals.”

1. How do you plan to compare and contrast the central 7-9 questions outlined in your proposal for the final project? In other words, will you be able to summarize the data from each research question in one succinct paragraph to meet the page requirements?
2. Do you think it would be easier to select 2-3 questions presented in your proposal to dig a little deeper or perhaps ask a few others from the class to join you on a team to cover all the questions presented?

I ask these questions, because I am struggling with these issues myself. I believe if I ask enough people in our community who are using a similar approach, I will (eventually) determine a model that may be useful for my own research.

Another suggestion: Could we potentially find a group of people in our research community (class) that are interested in using a similar approach, but still collectively analyze the communities we selected for personal purposes? In other words, I am certain most students have selected the entities of study for some reason, such as personal satisfaction or business achievement. However, Andy has made it clear that he would entertain teams multiple times. In fact, the option has been posted on every page of our instructions for the main project. In fact, the option has been posted so many times that I am beginning to think he may be giving us a subtle hint or clue: “This assignment will be more effective if you work collectively together and you may gain more valuable research by teaming”. I don’t read minds, but…

Example:

I am attempting to look at the effectiveness of two sites created to allegedly help people who have been taken advantage of by either an entity or a person. Section 203 under the Communication Decency Act assists people in their ability to say whatever they think, regardless if correct.

You are comparing two mobile application sites to analyze how useful and productive the sites are for the users to include accuracy and validity.

Marissa is researching the validity of airbnb.com, and looking at the controls put in place by the website to protect people.

I still have many proposals to read today, but it does appear that many of us are running in a few general hypothetical areas of question:

Which site is more effective due to the controls implemented by the site itself? (Compare/Contrast)

Can the data on these sites be considered valid? Is so, why or why not?

Could we potentially work together on a research methodology for all three sites to compare and contrast if the model is effective in and of itself while measuring the data across the board for multiple communications? In summary, we could compare and contrast the model that we collectively created against the sites we personally selected.

My biggest concern with many of our proposals is that they are too broad and we will not find the depth. Most of our topics could be potential dissertations; unfortunately we are lacking 5 years of research time (smile). I plan to look for commonality in proposals submitted-perhaps we can all make this better together. Could we potentially try to use our class community to research the depth of the Internet communities.?

Just thoughts.

Cheers!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 17:07, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
Hi Emmanuel,

Great topic!!
I am not sure if you would like to go into that direction, but from my point of view, I would say there is a big difference in the active level between iphone users via Android users in forum.
Iphone users are usually not as active as Android users in forum. And I think this is a really interesting topic to look into.

On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea to narrow down your topic as there are 9 research questions that you are planning to coverin your paper. It would be difficult to talk about each question in depth with the words limit.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:42, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Hello Emmanuel,
Have you considered discussing recent legislation rendering unlocking phones illegal in the United states?
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 14:11, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

::Hi [[User:Seifip|Seifip]]! Few bits of feedback for you. First of all, I like that you tied back to Lessig's regulators. Very strong prospectus overall. Second, I wonder how you define an ''effective way of shaping an online community'' ? I assume that you didn't define 'effective' because of the 400-word limit for this assignment. My advice would be for you to perhaps draw specific comparisons between StackOverflow and another online developer support community. Alternatively (and perhaps more fun), you might change the phrasing of your research question to something like 'In what ways does X architectural element affect conversation on StackOverflow?'. Overall though, I think this is a very strong topic for your final project, because developer communities are some of the most in-depth technical discussions on the web. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::: Thanks for your feedback, Erin! I'll consider narrowing down the research question to a single element. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 10:57, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::
Hi Philip,
Great topic! I think that, given the increase in number of programmers relying more and more on credible forums Such as StackOverflow (which has elements of Wikis, blogs, etc) for Q&A, API, CMS, and other Web documentations, it's not only relevant to reflect on the architecture of such forums but necessary as well. You raised a very interesting question about the effectiveness of shaping an online community based on that community's user interface's architecture. I definitely encourage you to proceed with this great topic and look forward to reading more.
By the way, thank you very much for your valuable time and feedback. Indeed, I will take your observations into consideration. --[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 13:13, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Philip, total code noob here!...
As stated, "genuinely dangerous" wikis, etc. are problems. Can you show how the architecture of StackOverflow corrals, or fails to corral, the potentially dangerous code within its architecture. Is the architecture of StackOverflow analogous to architecture in the physical world, e.g., holding cells, drunk tanks, SCIF "skiff" areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility, not to mention bank vaults, moats (water and dry), atm machines, and police car backseats, etc? What are the structural components used to contain the potentially dangerous code? Again, can physical architecture be used to explain the structural elements, e.g., bricks/mortar, razor wire/concertina wire/barbed wire, reinforced steel? Personally, I'd love to know as I went to school for architecture, yet I’m not strictly working in the field, and I find the concept of computing architecture fascinating... are there parallels that can be used to build a better site, have they been used, can parallels be made for the non-informed reader?

Are we to assume that StackOverflow has configured a successful or unsuccessful solution? Is it better, worse, or different than its rivals? Is it successful, and thus continues to exist (and possibly thrive), because of the criticisms from Programming Reddit and Experts Exchange users?

Your Lessig quote, can you expound upon it within the paper? If so, perhaps, providing example(s)of what it means in re your project?

Is there a better way of delineating the questions in StackedOverflow that have been skewed beyond their original intention?[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 14:57, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

::You raise some great ideas in your prospectus that would make for an interesting research paper around Etsy. However, I wonder if it might be best to focus more on the controls for which you can already observe playing out within the Etsy community's online activities? In other words, the community norms and architecture controls within Etsy itself (user-"self-regulation" and Etsy's-"private-regulation") might be the most reliable "observable data" that you will be able to anticipate over the next few weeks. The government level controls (public-regulation) you suggest may require moving outside this community, and I am not sure that a useful discussion (with observational data) will be possible within the page limit, nor would it be crucial to answering your research question.

::I like the research question very much, and I think it couches the challenges you hope to observe within the methodology you propose. Also, I anticipate that the community interactions over the next couple of months should provide you with enough observational data to answer your question. One more tip on the question... What would you think about starting the question with "How" rather than "Do"...? Play around with the phrase of your question, and see how it feels. My thinking is that you will allow yourself some flexibility in what you will truly have to report on when it comes time to write up the results. The answer to a "Do" question requires one to choose a yes or no and your findings will likely challenge any "absolute" judgment call... So don't let yourself get cornered into having to make that choice (at least not at this early stage). By starting the question with "How do Etsy’s regulations...", will allow you to have more flexibility to report on what the observations will show, and your can balance your discussion section on some good and not-so-good controls that play out over the next few weeks.

::Last point. In your sentence "I intend to identify how Etsy controls, or fails to control content in a manner that is advantageous to their users.", I wasn't sure if by "users" you meant the buyers, sellers, or both. My mind is interpreting that "user" is the buyer in this sentence’s context, and the word "content" is used to define both the items and community sellers that are being controlled. True? That distinction may be important to clarify as the full report gets written, because the Etsy controls and observations being gathered will (I suspect) impact buyers vs sellers vs content each a little differently. On a similar note... To cut down on the need to follow every buyer, seller and thing in "Top Searches" for this community, do you think it would be helpful to focus on just one type of craft? I don't know enough about Etsy specifically to determine if that would work for this project, but it might be another way to find a sub-group/sub-community limit, and still provide you with enough observational data to draw some conclusions.

::Hoping these comments are helpful! [[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:22, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

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

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::I really like the focal point you will be observing, and you are quite right in pointing out that this "negativity" is becoming an unfortunate reality for many "open comment" sections within these online spaces. Even what can begin as constructive dialog and healthy debate, can quickly degenerate into blather, flames, and hate words when anonymity can be so effectively used as a shield. Interestingly, we can't always point our finger at just one "troll" injecting some deliberate provocation...because sometimes the breakdown occurs with the 3 or 4 community members who (hither to) we're exchanging words in a perfectly eloquent & respectful manner. But the hate, racism, and bullying that poison the dialog on these comment-boards are on a much more disturbing level, and one that certainly will make for an interesting study.

::So, The broad question that I am hearing in your prospectus is "What are the most important controls that an online service provider can successfully implement to intercept and discourage cyberbullying, hate-speech, and irrelevant negativity? The sub-question then would be "How effective and/or constraining are those controls on the community's ability to engage with each other in a meaningful unbiased dialog about the content? (YouTube in this example)?

::Have you given some thought to the subject matter that you will focus on, as a way to observe how these comments progress? It may be helpful to put your lens onto a consistent subject to observe the cycle of communication. From there you should be able to witness what prompts the conversation to begin in the first place; when do counter-points get introduced, how long is constructive dialog able to bridge back and fourth, what is the "poison-pill" that kills the conversation, and when do the controls kick-in?. (Observing where the controls kick in would obviously be the essential part to report on, not so much each of those elements of the cycle of communication I itemized there.)

::I’d be curious to also know if the observation shows that the cycle of communication is more (or less) positive throughout based on the type of subject that initiates the conversation? News stories on "hot button" topics or baseball contrasted with (say) a page dealing with baking fudge probably have different trajectories of "success" in remaining positive. (I am thinking about the inherent behavior of the potential community members themselves… one lends itself to polarized opinions with predictable “zealots” appearing in either camp, while the other community may be more welcoming of differing opinions and tastes). SO for example, thinking of an individual wearing that New York Yankees hat in Fenway Park on game day....vs... a group of bakers talking about chocolate vs. peanut butter fudge recipes…The former is likely to risk some taunting, a black eye, a broken tooth, and perhaps a small riot... while those in the latter group, might, at worst, receive only a cavity. Anyway, my point is that it might be interesting compare a couple of focused topics of conversation as a way of discovering a smaller sub-community that builds around a YouTube comment-board (With one engaging in a "Hot button" topic.... While the other group is discussing something seemingly non-polarizing.)[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:00, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hate speech and Internet harassment are major players in the controversy surrounding freedom of speech. While it is a newsworthy topic, it is very broad and difficult to condense into a single essay. Building upon PSL’s suggestion about separating research, there are some controls you may wish to include in your research. For example, topics like a YouTube video claiming President Obama is the Anti-Christ are more likely to receive negative comments than a video of a kitten playing with yarn. Additionally, current events have a huge impact on the attention a video may receive. Looking back on the kitten video, there would be a massive public reaction if the yarn the kitten was playing with had a toxic dye in it that was killing kittens shortly after playing with it. Current events and the way stories are portrayed in the media have a significant impact over how users react in comment sections on YouTube. [[User:Julie|Julie]] 13:20, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Ben. While I think your prospectus brings up the interesting and very pertinent topic of government control, surveillance, and censorship, I think that it is simply far too broad of a topic. For the assignment, we are supposed to monitor the activities of users on a particular site or group of sites, but looking at the internet as a whole is far too much for an 8-10 page paper! Perhaps consider government control, surveillance, and censorship while observing a particular website that has been named as a victim (by the media) of NSA's surveillance and dig deeper there. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 13:02, 28 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Patricia, First off, love your idea, moderating internet speech, as well as your methodology: if what you want to measure is moderating behavior, norms, and free speech concerns, the “Politics & Leaders” forum is a fantastic place to do so since It appears that discussions there can turn from heated to vituperative in the blink of an eye! With respect to your research question, by specifying “effective,” I assume that you will quantify instances of behavior that violate the established rules of the site. This method is good since you give yourself a verifiable and quantifiable measure. You can then use Lessig’s and other scholars work to explain these data. Now, you say that you wish to "research the rules and regulations of the site,” which looks like it might be an insurmountable task. I visited the site’s “Super Editor handbook” and I see that it is quite extensive. Perhaps you might want to focus specifically on one type of violation, such as "3.4.1 Discouraged Ranking Themes - Personal Experience / Personal Preference Rankings” ? [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: This is a very interesting topic, and a complement of sorts to mine. As Vance has mentioned, it might be a good idea to focus on a single type of infringement. Also, keep in mind that looking up formal charges for infringement may not lead to a very accurate data point given that many take down notices are delivered through more traditional, private systems such as email (as an owner of several websites, I've received quite a few infringement notifications pertaining to content post by our users, all of them as a personal email, none through the official DMCA means or through our hosting provider). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:23, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:As an extension student and a reader of both sites, I agree that extension student is often more accurate especially due to the required affiliation. You should consider when collecting your data that often information is not so black and white. A lot of people on these treads seek opinion, which is more of a personal thought rather than right or wrong. A lot on forums is opinion based, not fact based and so I think you should prepare for your data to be filled with a lot of gray areas, which you might already be expecting. The correlation between accuracy and monitoring is certainty an interesting topic. Anyway, great research topic and I’m interested to see your findings. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:20, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Tom, intriguing topic! I'm a keen follower of the Bitcoin revolution myself so have been naturally drawn to your prospectus and Daniel's as well. However I would say its quite difficult to follow your proposal. I'm not quite sure how you intend to analyse and measure the use of cryptocurrency in conflict zones. Which conflict areas will you be targeting? Do you intend to follow forums or analyse chatter on various websites. If so, which ones? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:36, 2 March 2014 (EST)

:: One interesting avenue to explore might be how government control of internet in countries like China affect, and could affect the adoption and use of Bitcoin. I've followed Bitcoin for a long time and one of my concerns has always been that Bitcoin is dependent on some infrastructure that is relatively vulnerable to government control and influence, and that if Bitcoin ever grew sufficiently to compete with official state currencies it might invite even more internet regulation. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:14, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Julie, great prospectus. I find the whole North Korea situation appalling from a global response perspective. A lot of the articles, commentary and reactions from people around the world have been effectively muzzled. Your approach to analyse public reaction through social media is methodical and well thought through. Your plan to use specific tools to collect information from twitter hash tags, Google trends etc and follow up by analysing them to find common themes and trends is great. I look forward to reading the final report! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:52, 2 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Julie! Good job on your topic selection. I think that you raised very interesting points that are worthy of discussion. The problematic of human rights in North Korea is a sensitive and complex one to deal with. However, I am very intrigued by your methodology and strategy to intelligently use social media and other reliable analytic to scale your findings. I personally did not know some of those tools that you intend to utilize to track and illustrate your results (so thank you for mentioning them on your prospectus). I'm absolutely looking forward to reading more and finding out how you would execute your strategy. [[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 14:44, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

::Andrew, your prospectus sounds fantastic. Lots of interesting questions being asked in light of Lessig's Four Forces and the Quantified Self movement. I think that you many be asking too many questions for an 8-10 page paper, if you are to go into sufficient depth for each one. Do you think that it's realistic to answer the five research questions in so short of a paper? Other than that, I think you are off to a great start and I am interested in hearing more about it. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:49, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-03-04T19:37:33Z

Twood: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on February 25. 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 5 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!

----

*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Hey Jolie! You picked a really fascinating topic to cover! Just a few thoughts I hope will help. How do you plan on pinpointing how all the users behave differently, just because there are so many registered accounts you might be able to find people who behave nearly the same or certain individuals who have accounts on both Instagram and Flickr. Just as a mere suggestion maybe you can find a niche that is unique to each site and compare them? Maybe Instagram has thousands of pictures of food and seflis while Flickr has more professional content? I hope this will help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:15, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::I really like your topic to dive into why Instagram has been so successful compared to Flicker. It may be interesting to compare the age groups of each users. Instagram seems more accessible because it is a phone app that is simple and immediate to use, whereas Flicker users upload a batch of vacation photos, etc. I like Emmanuel's suggestion to compare the content between users. Another suggestion which relates to the selfies/food photos may be to compare the users themselves. I think older people tend to use Flickr and therefore may not post as much. However, younger people (who no long user facebook) posting to instagram all the time would provide a way for facebook to get back that market. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:31, 2 March 2014 (EST))

::Hi Jolie: This is a very interesting topic, with many possible areas focus on! (Also, a nice mix between the tech and creative worlds.) You mentioned that Instagram and Flickr diverge where mobile apps are concerned. This looked particularly interesting, especially following the Flickr app's overhaul. Anecdotally, via Twitter, it looked as though the Flickr update was a major talking point in both the Instagram and Flickr user groups. My thought was that it may be interesting to look at whether this major app update had any bearing on either of the two communities, as it may have impacted some of your research questions. Best! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 09:33, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Jolie, good choice of topic. Flickr and Instagram are great examples of user generated content applications where control practices play a integral part. I like your idea to compare and contrast the sites. Also, I think it's insightful how you noted that Flickr has been around longer but is not as successful, and your desire to find out why, Instagram is more successful. That question I think, leads you into a analysis of the successful tactics of each site. However, instead of viewing their success in light of stock prices as is usually done, in keeping with our class theme it seems that you will ask how do the sites control practices help with their success or failure. Perhaps as you look for those answers, you may find some trends that other companies may want to emulate or avoid to make their sites/apps successful. Your research could lead to consulting work for you! All the best on your project.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:43, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:: Hello Jolie, very interesting topic choice, both Flickr and Instagram represent emerging content applications that are quite popular. My one concern with your topic would be your question pertaining to the behavior of users on the site. Both Flickr and Instagram are massive sites and would be very difficult to mine for information without some type of selection bias. Have you considered sourcing a third-party site that tracks information on these two applications? Possibly a forum about rules for these two sites? I just think it would be a very daunting task to use Flickr and Instagram as your sources. I can't wait to see the final result, good luck. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:05, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Daniel,
What an interesting topic! I was not even aware that state governments recognized these currencies. Would you be able to come up with more material if you focus on one or two countries and their reaction to the online currency? Also Ichua gave great advice; maybe one country’s reaction and policies to multiple online currencies would help in the scope of observation. Your idea of creating a website to report and share your findings is really novel! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

:: Very interesting topic Daniel. Ive been following the progress of Bitcoin as a personal interest. Apart from the regulatory challenges Bitcoin poses for Governments, its also vulnerable to cyber attacks which can erode trust in using the currency. Whilst the actual Bitcoin itself is heavily encrypted, the Bitcoin exchanges are vulnerable to hacking and cyber theft as evidenced recently by the successful attacks on Mt Gox, one of the world's largest Bitcoin exchanges. It would be interesting to observe the effect (if any) this would have on the regulatory view of the currency by Governments. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Daniel, you've picked an interesting, and narrowly defined topic, and you have concrete steps for your methodology of answering the questions that you've come up with. I think you have a very good framework with which to start your project, all that's left is to fill in the blanks to the outline you've created for yourself. Good work up front. Also, presenting your project in website form is quite appropriate I think for your topic, it underscores your point in a way.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:55, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Great topic!! Have you considered discussing the ways in which bit coins are used for illegal purposes?(ex: The Silk Road- Where people can use bit coin to anonymously purchase illegal goods such as narcotics and firearms)
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 13:31, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Daniel: This really is a fantastic topic! Your research questions are very focused, which is great given the many ways you could run with the subject. I'm not certain if this will help, but: Here in Canada, there has been quite a lot of coverage regarding Bitcoin ATMs popping up. Here's one such article: http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-s-first-bitcoin-atm-now-accepting-cash-1.1688529. And another: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bitcoin-machine-comes-to-montreal-1.2525050. However, who knows how long these machines will remain in operation given the buzz now surrounding Canadian banking self-regulations: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/19/bitcoin-bank-of-montreal_n_4817319.html. Looking forward to reading more. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:37, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi, Marissa! I used AirBnB to rent out my apartment last summer and it actually resulted in me being robbed by the person to the tune of $10,000-- not including the rent for the summer, which he didn't pay (I didn't get any of it back, either, despite the insurance). It was a nasty situation. Anyways, from what I understand, the majority of communication on AirBnB is done privately. Without staging anything or intervening, how do you plan to observe enough to answer your question(s)? I think this is basically the same concern with one of the other treatments I read, regarding Facebook. I do think the security of platforms like AirBnB is of great concern and would be a very interesting subject to study in depth![[User:Castille|Castille]] 21:16, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Marissa,
I loved the idea for your prospectus! Just as a suggestion, would you consider comparing a few corresponding sites like 9flats, Couchsurfing International, or Hospitality Club? You could analyze how they handle different verifiability and security issues while also comparing how the sites are constructed to better “vet” their users. This may yield insight on how trustworthy their users are to each other. You might even want to inquire if one has had “major” legal issues in the past. I hope this helps! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:32, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----
Greetings Marissa!

Your topic is very interesting and it appears we have a few of the same elements in the companies we have selected to research: Verification and trust. From what I understand, you are addressing issues of users on auction/garage sale platforms surrounding the tiers of user verifiability. In other words, who is protecting one user from being taken advantage of by another user.

The comment you posted on the wiki under my topic in regards to the effectiveness of how the sites that I have selected deal with inaccurate comments made about companies by the general public are dealt with is of great importance-the public can ruin a business for no other reason than spite. In other words, who protects the companies from users.

The proposal you submitted intrigues me in many ways. By studying the community of airbnb.com, it appears you will be analyzing the controls implemented to make the site successful (verification, quality feedback, security, payment, userability and collaboration).

In summary, it appears we are both working on protection issues, and if the verification process is significant enough to gain consumer trust.

Would you mind if I ask how you plan to analyze the user? I would be interested in your methodology, and we may even find each other’s approach helpful to each other. We may even be able to compare and contrast the communities with a similar approach and work together if you would be interested.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:18, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Marissa, great topic! You are hitting on many of the themes of the class with your proposal. One thing I thought about when reading your prospectus was how this collaborative way of business could be a model for types of activities. This community type platform that you are studying could be used in other settings that could help communities to work more closely together by sharing resources, and collaborating when they need to buy and sell things. Perhaps, your research will highlight the ways that these communities are successful and not successful. And furthermore, your research could highlight the processes that other businesses and governments could take to emulate the best of these sites(indirectly by from the behavior and processes you observe). I know that this is not necessarily what your research will be focused on but perhaps a social scientist or entrepreneur reading your final project with find tools within your analysis to help them to build something we might not have seen before. All the best on in your work![[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:19, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

Dear Melissa,
What a great topic and area of coverage!!! I’m hoping my comments and questions will be of help to you! Which site succumbs more readily to outside pressure and take down requests? Also you mentioned that a susceptible compliant to both is that they are accused of not “vetting” their sources. You could possible test to see which one (if either of them do) checks them more thoroughly. This might be, and I know nothing about it, accomplished by putting posts of your own and noting if they require any amount of proof, citation, source, or quote of any kind. I really hope this helps you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:35, 1 March 2014 (EST)

Thank you so much Emmanuel! Your ideas are superb and very helpful!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Melissa, these sites can be a boon for consumers in helping to identify unscrupulous businesses and thus avoiding them. The issue that I find with these sites, that's never been effectively dealt with, is how do they identify and remove potentially inaccurate comments attacking a business as a result of say, a personal vendetta by a disgruntled employee or a customer who was unreasonable. Many small and medium size businesses rely on word of mouth for new customers. If the site allows the comments to remain, it may affect the business. This in effect may lead to possible blackmail of businesses by threatening to post inaccurate information on these sites. I'm also very interested in the sample groups and postings that you choose. Great topic! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marissa, Excellent insight and the problems posed are valid. Your questions are helping to me and assist in narrowing the topic-which is clearly too broad at the moment.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Melissa, Just a quick note, because I loved your prospectus so much (it's such a creative take on the assignment, but still seems to hit on all the prof's requirements, really amazing job). With your '''Q1''', ''Why would one site be more popular?''- I can;t help but wonder, does the fact that it has such a simple, perfect 1-word URL have any effect? Also, due to the time (2007) & place (USA) I automatically assumed this website was somehow related to Obama's election campaign- though from quick Google search there doesn't seem to be any direct link. Anyways, just wanted to say, I really like your prospectus. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:49, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

:Hey Mike, it would absolutely be my pleasure to provide feedback to you. I won't go too far before having the time to focus & read it completely- so my first feedback to you is: if you didn't pick such an interesting topic, I would have actually read the full prospectus. However after reading your first paragraph, I ended up watching TPP and reading its subreddit and forgot to finish reading your prospectus! hahaha. But this weekend I'll spend time focusing and try to provide you feedback, hopefully as good as the feedback you gave me (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 10:34, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi Mike! After reading [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]]'s comments below, I'm kinda worried about posting my comments, cus I think I understood your questions from a different point of view.
::*First of all, my question- how do you approach your 2nd qualitative question? I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by vulnerability.
::*Second, my advice, feel free to take it or leave it: to keep within scope of this project (2500 word paper seems so short!), I believe it may be easier to tackle Qualitative questions #1 & 3, and your second quantitative question (''Has it helped or hurt the game to impose such controls?''). I get the impression that these questions would be the ones that would be easiest to answer from following the community discussion on the subreddit. That being said, if we were writing 8000 word papers, it would be so much fun for you to really dive into the architecture & UX of the game itself, while paralleling it with the subreddit(!!!). Really awesome topic & prospectus.
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:After reading your prospectus, I have a few questions based on your questions, or maybe some questions that combine the ones you already have. It seems clear from what you write in your prospectus that the user experience is absolutely vulnerable to the controls imposed by the game, but I'm curious to know in what ways. Were users bumping up against controls they didn't like before there were changes, or was it only after the controls of the creator were made clear (he made himself known in an explicit way, rather than operating quietly in the background) that users began to find fault? (Another way of thinking about this might be- were a lot of users thinking about the controls imposed by the game before the creator's changes forced them to think about it?) If I understand the current set up correctly, it seems that users still have the option to have commands parsed as they go instead of waiting for them to be tallied and then implemented. So, were the controls only seen as problematic once users considered that there was one person making a decision that affected every user? Is the lack of democratic decision-making behind the scenes a bigger problem for users than the actual changes in user experience?

:As far as your quantitative question goes, I'm wondering if there's any way for you to know how many users stopped playing the game after the creator made changes? Do you have a means of seeing the changes over time? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

Dear Michael,
I find your prospective very interesting! I thought to give you these few suggestions. I hope they will help! You might want to see what percentage of Flickr users are a part of the Creative Commons community and whether it consists of a majority or a minority. Another area of research might be into the other forms of control that Flickr uses to protect copyrighted material, and then to compare them with Creative Commons to see if they are as effective, prevalent, or well known. Also, when there are infringements in copyright policy, do people respond to correction or do they just ignore and continue violating the rules? Lastly, how does the Creative Commons community handle repeat violators (if there are any)? Wish you the best! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:43, 1 March 2014 (EST)

You've mentioned architectural methods used to encourage correct attribution, but another architectural detail to consider is how and whether Flickr encourages users to publish their content under (cc) as opposed to (c) and if so, whether the users are in fact aware of the rights they retain and give away. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:28, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Lucia, This is looks to be very interesting - I was wondering if you can be more specific on what types of data the initiative is exploring. Are they looking for statistical data mainly, do you vote on what subjects you are going to put on the website or research? It looks like a great example of policy control via the government. I would to know more about the website and its overall goals - something that helps define its missions parameters, as I visited the website main page and got an idea of what they were saying - I am just needing some more clarity that's all. But again, the subject looks like a great idea and should be very interesting...[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 18:48, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Lucía!
I think your choice of study fits perfectly with the theme of the course! Perhaps you can also investigate to see if they are stifling public opinion or whether they are flooding the docs with pro-government voices to influence the theme towards their agenda? Also as a suggestion, can you see if it is truly open to everyone? Maybe you would like to find another similar program that the government has tried in the past (assuming that they have tried). Do the number of participants fluxuate? Is there a trend in what the government sees as inappropriate? Or is it just random edits that are corrected by the government? I hope these comments can help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:13, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:I second Jkelly's comment. This look very intriguing and I'd like to learn more about your plans for the project! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 23:14, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:Third. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 11:58, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hello, Dan! Admittedly, I had never heard of “Anandtech.com” prior to reading your prospectus, but I’m glad that you told me about it. I really like their “Cable TVification” assessment of the internet in recent years. After reading your prospectus it seems to me that you are focusing on Lessig’s norms as regulators within the site’s forums, as well as “laws" instituted by the website. It is an interesting subject, because as you say, this particular forum is very successful in fostering an environment where users are likely to return. That said, I see that you qualify users of the site as “good,” and I’m curious to know how you will operationalize this term for your project. You mention words like “courteous” and “helpful,” but I’m wondering: what characteristics do you think you will look for when observing, in order to qualify a “good user.” For comparison, do you have an example of what behavior that “bad” users might entail? Lastly, I see that there are literally millions of post on the forum; you may wish to focus on a specific topic and/or date range in order to have a more manageable data set to observe. I’m interested to see what you’re project will entail, especially being that I am also observing forums for my project. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Vance, thanks for taking the time to look at my prospectus - Basically, what I meant to convey is that these are the characteristics of a "good" website, a website that demonstrates use and activity to by the administrators and its members/users. What I will be focusing in on is, how is the site's control policy administered and conveyed to its members, both historically and presently, through the links in my prospectus – and to answer your question about bad behavior in online forums, yes I will, as I think that is a critical component regarding context – And this also goes out too Marissa as well, what I really wanted to focus in on was how does bad behavior and is control policies in its forums, effect a webite economically - as I think ths would even go further towards Lessig's FOUR norms of regulation on where the dot lands - but for obvious reasons, that could end up being too big. However, I still might toss something like that in - My goal is to pick out a couple of instances of the control poliy being implemented and see what the results were based on specific incident/instance was there a ban and how long was it for - what was the reason, what was the community's response to that action and so forth... - Again, thanks for the input and suggestions.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Dan, forums have proven very useful mediums for learning and troubleshooting. What would be interesting is how forums deal with covert advertising I.e. Forum posters who may be businesses, subtly advertising their own goods or services under the guise of responding to threads without paying for advertising rights. Would paid advertisers pose potential conflicts of interest to the neutrality of forums? I'd also be interested in seeing how you compare the Anandtech's forum controls against others. Would you choose similar types of forums with respect to content type? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marrisa, I tried to include your response with Vance's up top :O) [[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Dan!
If you are mainly comparing Anandtech’s forum site policies, maybe you could also compare past versions of the rules? Also, you might want to see if Anandtech has any unique features in toxicity control that would make it standout from other less successful forums. Overall the concept is fantastic! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hi Emmanuel, thanks for the feedback - ya, I am going to try and put some type of onus on Anandtech as well, and see if some of their reactions to their policies could be considered a little over zealous or a bit too far reaching. Most times, their admins/moderators are pretty decent, but again, like everyone else, there are times when a few of their admins/moderators could be having a bad day and maybe be a little too heavy handed - we'll see, stay tuned to find out. just a little humor :o) Thanks again for the input.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:I also love the topic and find the subject very interesting! I share Castille's concerns above. It seems challenging to get access to the materials you will need to answer these questions. I wonder if there is an open forum somewhere in the internet where angry divorcees can go to vent about how social media ruined their marriage? It may be a biased site, but it may provide resources to other statistics or materials that may help? Or if there is a community you could observe and monitor the degree of online flirting? ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:48, 2 March 2014 (EST))

Wow very cool subject - and one I am sure that deserves a lot of attention these days. With that said, it seems that this subject matter could be a thesis or dissertation as the material collected probably seems to be endless. I was wondering what specific community are you going to target on facebook, as this looks to be potentially a very large paper? I have to admit that I am fascinated to see what other statistics this might uncover, as I am sure we all have heard stories of spouses leaving their significant other for someone they met online. Yet maybe, you can focus on something more specific then a facebook community - as there might be other communities or even forums that have support groups for such instances or circumstances that you mentioned earlier. Maybe seeing how they interact with each other and what rules or policies can be observed and commented on. Overall the topic is really great and I am sure it will have some very interesting content that is fascinating.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:13, 2 March 2014 (EST)

:Your title choice definitely catches the eye and I think you are on to a very interesting subject choice here. I am going to echo the sentiment of a few others here who have pointed out that you may want to explore other forums for gathering information. I think a facebook community would be difficult to uncover what you are looking for. Is there a blog somewhere in which people go to ask advice in dealing with such issues? If this really contributes to 60% of divorces I am sure there are more sites out there that you can leverage for your research. It also seems to me like you are hinting at two different subjects, the first being pornography and divorce, the second being social media and divorce (in particular facebook). I would reccommend sticking to the first subject, not only is it more unique, but it also removes the issue associated with using facebook as a source (I think we were asked to avoid it). I think you have a great start here and can't wait to see the final result. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 13:56, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----
Very interesting subject matter Amy!

You may have selected one of the most controversial and highly emotional subjects out of all proposals presented. I would agree with Dancoron. The questions outlined could lead to a doctoral dissertation. Additionally, Castille does bring a good point to light, in that we are encouraged to avoid any work as an “alias”.

I think many of us are having trouble (to include myself) narrowing the research down to a tolerable amount of data collection for an in depth analysis.

In your proposal, you suggested comparing and contrasting divorce rates. What sources would you be comparing and contrasting? Are you speaking to different communities in the United States or on a larger level? Or, are you addressing the male/female divorce ratio?

Secondly, will you be cross-examining two nations who have access to Facebook, in efforts to compare and contrast divorce ratios in direct correlation to Facebook usage?

If your research goals are to use Facebook as the platform for study concerning divorce, it may be difficult to get access to this information unless you are accepted into a person’s profile, group or community. In efforts to stay objective, I don’t think you would want to study anyone that you personally know. Pornography could be a difficult study, in direct correlation to pornography with the controls Facebook allows for each individual user.

Would it be possible for you to follow a smaller, more open group that readily blogs/views pornography that is open to the public for data collection in a short period of time?

Unfortunately this is completely out of my arena. I have never been married and I don’t view porn sites. But, your topic is fabulously interesting.

Good luck with your research and I can’t wait to see your results.

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]! I love your topic. Your prospectus, combined with our brief discussions in class have really made me wonder- if 23andme is part of the first iteration of DNA decoding tools for personal use, where will we be in 25 years (: Just my general thoughts on this great topic- my comments specifically regarding your prospectus are below:
::*I really like that you asked whether the FDA is the best agency to regulate DNA testing, especially your last sentence ''what regulatory bodies outside of the FDA should be paying attention to this personalized and identifiable database?''. Throughout this class, I've had similar types of questions many times.
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, however it seems that the data you will collect (assessing changes in attitudes of community members) will be more apt to answer your 2nd question (''How has the ban on delivering health-related risk assessments to the 23andMe community impacted the consumer’s trust toward the product?''), rather than the underlined question that I referred to in my previous bullet.
:Please note that I am most interested in your underlined question regarding the FDA! However my advice is that your second question regarding attitudes & trust may be easier to study with respect to your methodology.
:[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST) - updated 03 March 2014 ~11pm

:It seems clear that although institutional positions and statements are mostly contrary to the patentability of human genes as such, however international patent offices (U.S., Europe, and Japan) have accepted the patenting of human DNA sequences if they meet the technical and legal requirements, including the “utility”. DNA occurs naturally in the human body and should not be patented by a single company that can then use its patents to limit scientific research and the free exchange of ideas. As said by Koepsell “Laws of patent are meant to be used to protect inventions — things that engineers are doing — not things that scientist discover” (Holman, 2007). A regulatory block of decoding tools for personal use would seem to be an exercise in economic control. I believe you'll find an ample supply of public opinion in regards to attitudes of community members. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 10:28, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-Margo- In relation to your topic, what is your opinion as to Apple recently integrating fingerprint scanners into the iPhone (5s)? Do you believe that Apple can store our personal information through this technology?
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 13:49, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:: Margo- Absolutely love the topic choice you've made. I recently took a course that focused on the ethics of biotechnology and found it to be one of the most intriguing topics I have studied. 23 & me is an excellent site to discuss in your work, as I am sure you are aware of the relationship between the site and google. There will be no shortage of sources for your research and I think judging from your prospectus you are off to an amazing start. If you would be interested in working together on this as a group project I would be very interested in collaborating with you. I would propose creating a website of our findings (which I can create) and can provide some additional insight on the topic. Please send me an email @ danielrogowski@fas.harvard.edu if that would interest you. Regards, Daniel. [[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:17, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Castille, fantastic topic! I like your approach to analysing this topic and its a subject which is very controversial & personal. I agree, the main challenge for any Government is to try and regulate the numerous blogs and hashtags on sites like Tumblr, effectively putting a suicide watch on them. Would this be an effective use of tax payer funds and how many suicides could this prevent? What would be the process be if a potential suicide victim was identified? We have to be careful not to act in a knee-jerk reaction when there is a death and expect the Government to do something about it. I think there needs to be a balance of responsibility between these site operators and the Government. I'm very interested in the outcome of your topic. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Castille --

This is such an excellent topic choice and it is so important for our society today, in particular for the youth and young vulnerable minds of our generation. The fact that the site changed its policy to allow blogs that engaged in "discussion, support, encouragement, and documenting the experiences of those dealing with difficult conditions like anorexia, bulimia, and other forms of self-injury” may actually make the policy more convoluted for the website than it had hoped. In one sense, it seems that they were making amends to promote free speech and also to allow healthy dialogue about such behaviors. However, there becomes a "grey line" as to what discussions are supportive or encouraging against such behaviors. For example, an element of perception is involved in that some users (particularly immature, younger generations) may view discussion boards about anorexic "experiences" as an enticement of curiosity to engage in such behaviors rather than to refrain from them. As your research unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the "new" policy fares amongst the users. Often times, it seems when a website makes a new policy, it is loosely "enforced" for a while and then it eventually dies out and goes back to square one. Maybe a compare and contrast of the impact before and after the two policies were enacted could be an interesting angle.

I am interested in how you would monitor the data from the group within or just as an outside observer? You mentioned that you would like to join the group (if that is allowed), and I am thinking of doing the same thing in my research. However, someone had mentioned that this may not be allowed or that we are not supposed to use an alias? It looks like we both need to clarify this part.

Great work and I look forward to seeing the results!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:14, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Greetings Watson!

A few questions:

How would you determine which distribution channel the Syrian opposition used the most?

How would you be able to detect the limitations of public information if it has not been disclosed?

If you were to select two media channels to compare/contrast, would there be enough data available in those two communities to properly “diagnose”, or is the data withheld from the public?

If you chart a paper on what capacitated the Syrian opposition groups to communicate their cause, will this information lead to a report or a true communal study on the Internet?

Very interesting proposal and I wish you the best in your research!

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:This is a very interesting topic. There is a lot to examine here, especially since a large part of the attacks and arguments happened online. An interesting topic would be to mention the Syrian Electronic Army and the many acts of online vandalism that they did. You can find more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Electronic_Army The Internet was certainly a tool in the conflict. An interesting focus would be to investigate their motives and the impact this electronic army had on the Syrian conflict.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:01, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Greetings, Watson!

I am intrigued by your topic because I truly believe that social media is becoming the new stomping ground for collective action and has incredible potential to spawn modern revolutions of many types. Have you considered comparing and contrasting how the Wall Street movement/protest was influenced by social media comparable to the events in Syria? I read an article a while back that discussed how the internet in Syria was literally shut down for several days and there was great speculation that this was actually an inside job to prevent the power of social media and communication. What a frightening and disturbing abuse of power! This act alone may show to a certain extent how the power of the internet and social media was suppressed by the regime. I wish I could recall the article but if I find it I will send it your way.

I am speculative that social media is more powerful than youtube in terms of collective action, but this is a conjecture. The youtube video tried in that Garcia vs. Google case was said to have prompted the entire uprising yet only about 500 people had actually viewed the video. It seems the video became a type of "figure" for the push and was used as more of a platform by the social media community to promote action even if most had not even seen the video. For better of worse, the "mob mentality" is alive and well on the internet. In any event, I am curious to see how your research pans out!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:33, 4 March 2014 (EST)

------

*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Laura – Instagram is not only the biggest mobile photo sharing app, but is also now owned by Facebook, and thus a disproportionate amount of mobile peer to peer communication falls to the censorship whims of this company. This is an incredibly worthy area to research, if not lofty. Since Instagram now allows direct, private communication of photos, you have to wonder if there is a difference in how moderated these communications are versus a post intended for the public that uses hashtags (let us not forget that the hashtag’s original use was searchability, not irony). That said it might be very difficult monitor the differences in speed and effectiveness of what gets censored without interfering with the community you’re observing. One way may be to follow news events (such as this recent one: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9448993) that show Instagram’s policy enforcement in action. The issue with that approach is that it is cherry picking the successful takedowns rather than observing uncensored posts that are breaking the terms of service. Another option may be monitoring Instagram’s list of banned hashtags and searching synonyms or alternate hashtags, but again this is a difficult aspect of their policy to observe in action.
::I believe there is still strategizing to be done to design your observation of the community, above merely reporting their policy. I hope my take somehow helps you with this endeavor!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 09:55, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Laura!

I am not familiar with Instagram but I know it is a very popular application with my friends and I feel out of the loop for not being involved with it. As you mention this application is extremely popular worldwide so studying the nodes of its infrastructure and the social norms, policies, etc. associated with it is a valiant effort for understanding our modern generation and evolving cyber world. Are there any particular rules or norms that you are aiming to target? For example, perhaps studying one specific violations related to pornography, harmful behavior, violence, etc. may help to narrow it down. I admit I am not familiar with Instagram, but I would imagine a site of this magnitude has a tremendously challenging struggle in policing such offenses. Is there a way for users to report offenses observed within the community? If so, I would be curious to know how often reports are filed and whether or not they are acted on. Many times, I feel that users on sites like this witness offensive material but refrain from acting on it because they do not believe their report will be followed-up on. It would be interesting (I know this would be difficult to do) to find which types of users are most judicious in filing reports on offensive behavior. For example, I would guess that the teenage generation is less concerned or bothered by offensive material that may have become immune to them in contrast to members of the older generation that have jumped on the social media bandwagon later in life.

Best of luck in your cyber adventure!

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

:Hi Jon- My first thoughts on your prospectus have to do with scope. In comparing these three different games, I think there might be too many factors to consider-- subscription-based vs. free, PC vs. iOS, etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be more manageable to tackle your research questions if you focused in on two games that were more similar so that you have fewer variables to contend with when you're thinking about your research questions. My instinct is that working with WoW and League of Legends would work since you can still attempt to tackle each of Lessig's four forces. I'm not sure how much the law in the US varies from that in Finland, but removing Clash of Clans from the equation might help the narrow your scope in that sense as well. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:27, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Hi Ian, great topic and I like the innovative approach you're taking. I agree that social media is an important medium for Governments to gauge public mood or opinion. In fact, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott recently spent $4 million to analyse social media and gauge the public mood on certain policies he introduced. From my understanding, you're looking to build something like a mind map to organise the social media feedback and also meta tag it? This would effectively allow content to be searched and categorised similar to a knowledge base. Just a couple of questions though....How will you apply the cognitive map? Do you have a specific social media medium and Government in mind? Looking forward to reading the final outcome! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I was unaware of this community exits, and I think it will be a great place for graduate students and researchers to find which papers they should be reading. For example, if I need to utilize a method that is slightly outside of my field, this community will help identify the appropriate and esteemed papers. This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day). Because PubMed is already an exclusive database primarily for biomedical researchers, I am interested to what you observe. I am worried that because only pubmed users (or people using a University IP address) have access to pubmed articles, open access will play a minimal role in which articles spark more conversation. Unfortunately, people tend to converse about papers in high-impact journals like Nature and Science, and I would expect these articles to compete with the open access ones. Perhaps an observation of which articles receive complaints about not being open-access for the curious science lover who is no longer in academia may be an interesting perspective.. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 13:45, 2 March 2014 (EST))

:::Hi Paul! Thank you for introducing me to PubMed Commons! I have to agree with [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]: people who are 'allowed' to comment on PubMed articles often have access to most articles through their Universities or Institutions. That being said, since first reading your prospectus, I've thought so much about the access to PubMed Commons. In order to be part of the community, the major factor is that you are an author of a paper appearing in PubMed. An author can 'invite themselves' only if PubMed has your email address on file. For personal/professional interest of being a member of this site, I've checked with 8 different people (who are all corresponding authors on separate PubMed articles) whether they could invite themselves, and only 1 of the 8 authors could gain access. I understand why it is important for PubMed to confirm identity, however I believe this factor will strongly limit the adoption of PubMed Commons. It should also be noted that I am not an average PubMed author- most scientists I talked to about this think 'social media is stupid' or a waste of time. Very few will go through the trouble of asking 8 separate authors to try to log in, until they find one person who can. However, exactly as Margo pointed out, "This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day)".
:::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I can see where this topic would make an interesting focal point for a review article or commentary on the exploitation opportunities, (legal and criminal) that open source software packages like these permit. As an administrator of several IT systems myself, reading your prospectus has made me curious to learn more about NESSUS and Metasploit, and perhaps use them to test out weaknesses in my own servers.

::Let's continue along that thought...and say I will download and experiment with this software... I'm using this scenario "hypothetically" in hopes that it may help you focus more on the key question(s) you are hoping to answer, and to also consider "from where" you will be able to make some observations to address that question. In other words, where might you be able to follow some online community activity over the next few weeks, and observe some interactions between the users, developers, and IT administrators who work with these software packages?

::So, after just now learning of these open source packages, I want to download them on my Linux box and experiment. I want to see how others have installed, implemented, and customized the software to exploit a variety of possibilities. Is there an open community where I can lurk and maybe participate in a discussion to learn about various ways I can use this software to test out my servers for vulnerabilities and bugs? What kind of controls might I be subjected to within that community that may prevent me from discussing specifics about what known vulnerabilities have been discovered, and what security holes one can exploit? If I discover a major security flaw, can (or should) I document this within that online community? Are there normative, legal, and/or architectural controls that prevent or discourage divulging too much information within his community? I noticed a discussion forum at http://discussions.nessus.org/welcome, and https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit... would these be the communities you were considering?

::Anyway, hoping this helps out. I just wanted to raise these questions as a way to help you identify the specific online community where some observable activity will occur, and focus in on what controls you hope to be able to see playing-out during the rest of the semester. You may already have that in mind, but it wasn't in the prospectus, so I thought I'd raise the questions here. I think knowing the answer to these questions will help put the ideas into the context of the Final Project's objectives and should also help with the next task of building the outline in Assignment 3. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 14:25, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Twood. I find your paper topic to be incredibly interesting and well-thought out. I wish I had constructive criticism to give you, but I find that you are on the right path. My only question at the moment: how do you plan on measuring the response of community members to the each sites' control mechanisms? [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:41, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Twood, I find this to be a very cool topic and being a musician myself, makes it even more so. I have never ever been a fan of sampling music outright and then adding a new beat and some remixing to make it one's own, just not my style. I like the prospect of you examining a smaller or less commercialized community musically (as compared to You tube). Again, as own who owns small studio at home and records pretty solidly, it is always great to see musicians recording and producing their own stuff from scratch with small home studio setups. I hope you show an example of a community catching someone in the act of stealing another's music or idea and what the outcome of that interaction will be - because as musicians we always borrow, modify or improves someone else's cord progression or guitar lick to make it our own. So, it would be great to see if you could hint about that distinction - as I am sure it comes up a lot in communities like this. But, overall really nice topic to concentrate on.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----------

*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Cheikh, I'm looking forward to reading your paper. Online technology journalism is indeed a most interesting industry... after all, a tech journalist with sufficient influence can single-handedly kill an up and coming technology project with billions in R&D costs, and this is particularly worrying given how easy it is for a competing company with a sufficient budget to influence said journalists, as well as how often these journalists write reviews having used the product in questions for mere minutes, or without necessary expertise in the are where such product can be useful. That said, my suggestion to you is to narrow your topic to one single research question. At the moment, you paper risks going astray as you intend to cover a wide array of very different concerns. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:06, 4 March 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:You raise some great research questions to examine within these communities. You might want to narrow your focus more. Will you be talking about the legalities of “jail-breaking” and it’s effect on the Apple and Android market? Considering the topics we discussed in class, it might be interesting to develop your research to mention the view of major companies toward these forums and the rogue developers. Once an iphone is jail-broken, it losses its apple warranty coverage. This might be a topic you want to bring up with your research. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:36, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

Greetings Emmanuel,

You have selected a really “hot” topic. Mobile applications appear to be taking over actual web development these days. I’m in the process of creating a new site, for the general public, to locate assistance after they have been harmed by other entities. The developer of my site highly recommended that I create a mobile app at the same time. He is correct and the only reason I do not plan to follow his suggestion is directly related to cost.

I’m unclear of the real statistics, but Internet users seem to be using phones as their selected source of information more frequently than computers. Most people carry their phones (even to bed) but fewer seem to be in constant travel with their laptop.

I am not familiar with the sites you listed in your proposal since I am not a mobile application developer, but I am happy to learn there are forums to enhance applications through large communities.

It appears many of our classmates are attempting to use a compare/contrast approach, which seems logical, if we want to identify how resourceful one community is versus another. Your research will be extremely useful to many, and I would like to pass your results onto my developer after you have completed all the hard work (smile).

A few questions for you:

“I want to compare how useful and productive these web sites are to the users end for accomplishing these goals.”

1. How do you plan to compare and contrast the central 7-9 questions outlined in your proposal for the final project? In other words, will you be able to summarize the data from each research question in one succinct paragraph to meet the page requirements?
2. Do you think it would be easier to select 2-3 questions presented in your proposal to dig a little deeper or perhaps ask a few others from the class to join you on a team to cover all the questions presented?

I ask these questions, because I am struggling with these issues myself. I believe if I ask enough people in our community who are using a similar approach, I will (eventually) determine a model that may be useful for my own research.

Another suggestion: Could we potentially find a group of people in our research community (class) that are interested in using a similar approach, but still collectively analyze the communities we selected for personal purposes? In other words, I am certain most students have selected the entities of study for some reason, such as personal satisfaction or business achievement. However, Andy has made it clear that he would entertain teams multiple times. In fact, the option has been posted on every page of our instructions for the main project. In fact, the option has been posted so many times that I am beginning to think he may be giving us a subtle hint or clue: “This assignment will be more effective if you work collectively together and you may gain more valuable research by teaming”. I don’t read minds, but…

Example:

I am attempting to look at the effectiveness of two sites created to allegedly help people who have been taken advantage of by either an entity or a person. Section 203 under the Communication Decency Act assists people in their ability to say whatever they think, regardless if correct.

You are comparing two mobile application sites to analyze how useful and productive the sites are for the users to include accuracy and validity.

Marissa is researching the validity of airbnb.com, and looking at the controls put in place by the website to protect people.

I still have many proposals to read today, but it does appear that many of us are running in a few general hypothetical areas of question:

Which site is more effective due to the controls implemented by the site itself? (Compare/Contrast)

Can the data on these sites be considered valid? Is so, why or why not?

Could we potentially work together on a research methodology for all three sites to compare and contrast if the model is effective in and of itself while measuring the data across the board for multiple communications? In summary, we could compare and contrast the model that we collectively created against the sites we personally selected.

My biggest concern with many of our proposals is that they are too broad and we will not find the depth. Most of our topics could be potential dissertations; unfortunately we are lacking 5 years of research time (smile). I plan to look for commonality in proposals submitted-perhaps we can all make this better together. Could we potentially try to use our class community to research the depth of the Internet communities.?

Just thoughts.

Cheers!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 17:07, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
Hi Emmanuel,

Great topic!!
I am not sure if you would like to go into that direction, but from my point of view, I would say there is a big difference in the active level between iphone users via Android users in forum.
Iphone users are usually not as active as Android users in forum. And I think this is a really interesting topic to look into.

On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea to narrow down your topic as there are 9 research questions that you are planning to coverin your paper. It would be difficult to talk about each question in depth with the words limit.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:42, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Hello Emmanuel,
Have you considered discussing recent legislation rendering unlocking phones illegal in the United states?
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 14:11, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

::Hi [[User:Seifip|Seifip]]! Few bits of feedback for you. First of all, I like that you tied back to Lessig's regulators. Very strong prospectus overall. Second, I wonder how you define an ''effective way of shaping an online community'' ? I assume that you didn't define 'effective' because of the 400-word limit for this assignment. My advice would be for you to perhaps draw specific comparisons between StackOverflow and another online developer support community. Alternatively (and perhaps more fun), you might change the phrasing of your research question to something like 'In what ways does X architectural element affect conversation on StackOverflow?'. Overall though, I think this is a very strong topic for your final project, because developer communities are some of the most in-depth technical discussions on the web. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::: Thanks for your feedback, Erin! I'll consider narrowing down the research question to a single element. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 10:57, 4 March 2014 (EST)

::
Hi Philip,
Great topic! I think that, given the increase in number of programmers relying more and more on credible forums Such as StackOverflow (which has elements of Wikis, blogs, etc) for Q&A, API, CMS, and other Web documentations, it's not only relevant to reflect on the architecture of such forums but necessary as well. You raised a very interesting question about the effectiveness of shaping an online community based on that community's user interface's architecture. I definitely encourage you to proceed with this great topic and look forward to reading more.
By the way, thank you very much for your valuable time and feedback. Indeed, I will take your observations into consideration. --[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 13:13, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

::You raise some great ideas in your prospectus that would make for an interesting research paper around Etsy. However, I wonder if it might be best to focus more on the controls for which you can already observe playing out within the Etsy community's online activities? In other words, the community norms and architecture controls within Etsy itself (user-"self-regulation" and Etsy's-"private-regulation") might be the most reliable "observable data" that you will be able to anticipate over the next few weeks. The government level controls (public-regulation) you suggest may require moving outside this community, and I am not sure that a useful discussion (with observational data) will be possible within the page limit, nor would it be crucial to answering your research question.

::I like the research question very much, and I think it couches the challenges you hope to observe within the methodology you propose. Also, I anticipate that the community interactions over the next couple of months should provide you with enough observational data to answer your question. One more tip on the question... What would you think about starting the question with "How" rather than "Do"...? Play around with the phrase of your question, and see how it feels. My thinking is that you will allow yourself some flexibility in what you will truly have to report on when it comes time to write up the results. The answer to a "Do" question requires one to choose a yes or no and your findings will likely challenge any "absolute" judgment call... So don't let yourself get cornered into having to make that choice (at least not at this early stage). By starting the question with "How do Etsy’s regulations...", will allow you to have more flexibility to report on what the observations will show, and your can balance your discussion section on some good and not-so-good controls that play out over the next few weeks.

::Last point. In your sentence "I intend to identify how Etsy controls, or fails to control content in a manner that is advantageous to their users.", I wasn't sure if by "users" you meant the buyers, sellers, or both. My mind is interpreting that "user" is the buyer in this sentence’s context, and the word "content" is used to define both the items and community sellers that are being controlled. True? That distinction may be important to clarify as the full report gets written, because the Etsy controls and observations being gathered will (I suspect) impact buyers vs sellers vs content each a little differently. On a similar note... To cut down on the need to follow every buyer, seller and thing in "Top Searches" for this community, do you think it would be helpful to focus on just one type of craft? I don't know enough about Etsy specifically to determine if that would work for this project, but it might be another way to find a sub-group/sub-community limit, and still provide you with enough observational data to draw some conclusions.

::Hoping these comments are helpful! [[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:22, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

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

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::I really like the focal point you will be observing, and you are quite right in pointing out that this "negativity" is becoming an unfortunate reality for many "open comment" sections within these online spaces. Even what can begin as constructive dialog and healthy debate, can quickly degenerate into blather, flames, and hate words when anonymity can be so effectively used as a shield. Interestingly, we can't always point our finger at just one "troll" injecting some deliberate provocation...because sometimes the breakdown occurs with the 3 or 4 community members who (hither to) we're exchanging words in a perfectly eloquent & respectful manner. But the hate, racism, and bullying that poison the dialog on these comment-boards are on a much more disturbing level, and one that certainly will make for an interesting study.

::So, The broad question that I am hearing in your prospectus is "What are the most important controls that an online service provider can successfully implement to intercept and discourage cyberbullying, hate-speech, and irrelevant negativity? The sub-question then would be "How effective and/or constraining are those controls on the community's ability to engage with each other in a meaningful unbiased dialog about the content? (YouTube in this example)?

::Have you given some thought to the subject matter that you will focus on, as a way to observe how these comments progress? It may be helpful to put your lens onto a consistent subject to observe the cycle of communication. From there you should be able to witness what prompts the conversation to begin in the first place; when do counter-points get introduced, how long is constructive dialog able to bridge back and fourth, what is the "poison-pill" that kills the conversation, and when do the controls kick-in?. (Observing where the controls kick in would obviously be the essential part to report on, not so much each of those elements of the cycle of communication I itemized there.)

::I’d be curious to also know if the observation shows that the cycle of communication is more (or less) positive throughout based on the type of subject that initiates the conversation? News stories on "hot button" topics or baseball contrasted with (say) a page dealing with baking fudge probably have different trajectories of "success" in remaining positive. (I am thinking about the inherent behavior of the potential community members themselves… one lends itself to polarized opinions with predictable “zealots” appearing in either camp, while the other community may be more welcoming of differing opinions and tastes). SO for example, thinking of an individual wearing that New York Yankees hat in Fenway Park on game day....vs... a group of bakers talking about chocolate vs. peanut butter fudge recipes…The former is likely to risk some taunting, a black eye, a broken tooth, and perhaps a small riot... while those in the latter group, might, at worst, receive only a cavity. Anyway, my point is that it might be interesting compare a couple of focused topics of conversation as a way of discovering a smaller sub-community that builds around a YouTube comment-board (With one engaging in a "Hot button" topic.... While the other group is discussing something seemingly non-polarizing.)[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:00, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hate speech and Internet harassment are major players in the controversy surrounding freedom of speech. While it is a newsworthy topic, it is very broad and difficult to condense into a single essay. Building upon PSL’s suggestion about separating research, there are some controls you may wish to include in your research. For example, topics like a YouTube video claiming President Obama is the Anti-Christ are more likely to receive negative comments than a video of a kitten playing with yarn. Additionally, current events have a huge impact on the attention a video may receive. Looking back on the kitten video, there would be a massive public reaction if the yarn the kitten was playing with had a toxic dye in it that was killing kittens shortly after playing with it. Current events and the way stories are portrayed in the media have a significant impact over how users react in comment sections on YouTube. [[User:Julie|Julie]] 13:20, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Ben. While I think your prospectus brings up the interesting and very pertinent topic of government control, surveillance, and censorship, I think that it is simply far too broad of a topic. For the assignment, we are supposed to monitor the activities of users on a particular site or group of sites, but looking at the internet as a whole is far too much for an 8-10 page paper! Perhaps consider government control, surveillance, and censorship while observing a particular website that has been named as a victim (by the media) of NSA's surveillance and dig deeper there. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 13:02, 28 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Patricia, First off, love your idea, moderating internet speech, as well as your methodology: if what you want to measure is moderating behavior, norms, and free speech concerns, the “Politics & Leaders” forum is a fantastic place to do so since It appears that discussions there can turn from heated to vituperative in the blink of an eye! With respect to your research question, by specifying “effective,” I assume that you will quantify instances of behavior that violate the established rules of the site. This method is good since you give yourself a verifiable and quantifiable measure. You can then use Lessig’s and other scholars work to explain these data. Now, you say that you wish to "research the rules and regulations of the site,” which looks like it might be an insurmountable task. I visited the site’s “Super Editor handbook” and I see that it is quite extensive. Perhaps you might want to focus specifically on one type of violation, such as "3.4.1 Discouraged Ranking Themes - Personal Experience / Personal Preference Rankings” ? [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: This is a very interesting topic, and a complement of sorts to mine. As Vance has mentioned, it might be a good idea to focus on a single type of infringement. Also, keep in mind that looking up formal charges for infringement may not lead to a very accurate data point given that many take down notices are delivered through more traditional, private systems such as email (as an owner of several websites, I've received quite a few infringement notifications pertaining to content post by our users, all of them as a personal email, none through the official DMCA means or through our hosting provider). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:23, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:As an extension student and a reader of both sites, I agree that extension student is often more accurate especially due to the required affiliation. You should consider when collecting your data that often information is not so black and white. A lot of people on these treads seek opinion, which is more of a personal thought rather than right or wrong. A lot on forums is opinion based, not fact based and so I think you should prepare for your data to be filled with a lot of gray areas, which you might already be expecting. The correlation between accuracy and monitoring is certainty an interesting topic. Anyway, great research topic and I’m interested to see your findings. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:20, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Tom, intriguing topic! I'm a keen follower of the Bitcoin revolution myself so have been naturally drawn to your prospectus and Daniel's as well. However I would say its quite difficult to follow your proposal. I'm not quite sure how you intend to analyse and measure the use of cryptocurrency in conflict zones. Which conflict areas will you be targeting? Do you intend to follow forums or analyse chatter on various websites. If so, which ones? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:36, 2 March 2014 (EST)

:: One interesting avenue to explore might be how government control of internet in countries like China affect, and could affect the adoption and use of Bitcoin. I've followed Bitcoin for a long time and one of my concerns has always been that Bitcoin is dependent on some infrastructure that is relatively vulnerable to government control and influence, and that if Bitcoin ever grew sufficiently to compete with official state currencies it might invite even more internet regulation. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:14, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Julie, great prospectus. I find the whole North Korea situation appalling from a global response perspective. A lot of the articles, commentary and reactions from people around the world have been effectively muzzled. Your approach to analyse public reaction through social media is methodical and well thought through. Your plan to use specific tools to collect information from twitter hash tags, Google trends etc and follow up by analysing them to find common themes and trends is great. I look forward to reading the final report! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:52, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

::Andrew, your prospectus sounds fantastic. Lots of interesting questions being asked in light of Lessig's Four Forces and the Quantified Self movement. I think that you many be asking too many questions for an 8-10 page paper, if you are to go into sufficient depth for each one. Do you think that it's realistic to answer the five research questions in so short of a paper? Other than that, I think you are off to a great start and I am interested in hearing more about it. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:49, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-03-04T14:33:19Z

Twood: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on February 25. 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 5 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!

----

*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Hey Jolie! You picked a really fascinating topic to cover! Just a few thoughts I hope will help. How do you plan on pinpointing how all the users behave differently, just because there are so many registered accounts you might be able to find people who behave nearly the same or certain individuals who have accounts on both Instagram and Flickr. Just as a mere suggestion maybe you can find a niche that is unique to each site and compare them? Maybe Instagram has thousands of pictures of food and seflis while Flickr has more professional content? I hope this will help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:15, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::I really like your topic to dive into why Instagram has been so successful compared to Flicker. It may be interesting to compare the age groups of each users. Instagram seems more accessible because it is a phone app that is simple and immediate to use, whereas Flicker users upload a batch of vacation photos, etc. I like Emmanuel's suggestion to compare the content between users. Another suggestion which relates to the selfies/food photos may be to compare the users themselves. I think older people tend to use Flickr and therefore may not post as much. However, younger people (who no long user facebook) posting to instagram all the time would provide a way for facebook to get back that market. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:31, 2 March 2014 (EST))

::Hi Jolie: This is a very interesting topic, with many possible areas focus on! (Also, a nice mix between the tech and creative worlds.) You mentioned that Instagram and Flickr diverge where mobile apps are concerned. This looked particularly interesting, especially following the Flickr app's overhaul. Anecdotally, via Twitter, it looked as though the Flickr update was a major talking point in both the Instagram and Flickr user groups. My thought was that it may be interesting to look at whether this major app update had any bearing on either of the two communities, as it may have impacted some of your research questions. Best! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 09:33, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Daniel,
What an interesting topic! I was not even aware that state governments recognized these currencies. Would you be able to come up with more material if you focus on one or two countries and their reaction to the online currency? Also Ichua gave great advice; maybe one country’s reaction and policies to multiple online currencies would help in the scope of observation. Your idea of creating a website to report and share your findings is really novel! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::
Very interesting topic Daniel. Ive been following the progress of Bitcoin as a personal interest. Apart from the regulatory challenges Bitcoin poses for Governments, its also vulnerable to cyber attacks which can erode trust in using the currency. Whilst the actual Bitcoin itself is heavily encrypted, the Bitcoin exchanges are vulnerable to hacking and cyber theft as evidenced recently by the successful attacks on Mt Gox, one of the world's largest Bitcoin exchanges. It would be interesting to observe the effect (if any) this would have on the regulatory view of the currency by Governments. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi, Marissa! I used AirBnB to rent out my apartment last summer and it actually resulted in me being robbed by the person to the tune of $10,000-- not including the rent for the summer, which he didn't pay (I didn't get any of it back, either, despite the insurance). It was a nasty situation. Anyways, from what I understand, the majority of communication on AirBnB is done privately. Without staging anything or intervening, how do you plan to observe enough to answer your question(s)? I think this is basically the same concern with one of the other treatments I read, regarding Facebook. I do think the security of platforms like AirBnB is of great concern and would be a very interesting subject to study in depth![[User:Castille|Castille]] 21:16, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Marissa,
I loved the idea for your prospectus! Just as a suggestion, would you consider comparing a few corresponding sites like 9flats, Couchsurfing International, or Hospitality Club? You could analyze how they handle different verifiability and security issues while also comparing how the sites are constructed to better “vet” their users. This may yield insight on how trustworthy their users are to each other. You might even want to inquire if one has had “major” legal issues in the past. I hope this helps! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:32, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----
Greetings Marissa!

Your topic is very interesting and it appears we have a few of the same elements in the companies we have selected to research: Verification and trust. From what I understand, you are addressing issues of users on auction/garage sale platforms surrounding the tiers of user verifiability. In other words, who is protecting one user from being taken advantage of by another user.

The comment you posted on the wiki under my topic in regards to the effectiveness of how the sites that I have selected deal with inaccurate comments made about companies by the general public are dealt with is of great importance-the public can ruin a business for no other reason than spite. In other words, who protects the companies from users.

The proposal you submitted intrigues me in many ways. By studying the community of airbnb.com, it appears you will be analyzing the controls implemented to make the site successful (verification, quality feedback, security, payment, userability and collaboration).

In summary, it appears we are both working on protection issues, and if the verification process is significant enough to gain consumer trust.

Would you mind if I ask how you plan to analyze the user? I would be interested in your methodology, and we may even find each other’s approach helpful to each other. We may even be able to compare and contrast the communities with a similar approach and work together if you would be interested.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:18, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

Dear Melissa,
What a great topic and area of coverage!!! I’m hoping my comments and questions will be of help to you! Which site succumbs more readily to outside pressure and take down requests? Also you mentioned that a susceptible compliant to both is that they are accused of not “vetting” their sources. You could possible test to see which one (if either of them do) checks them more thoroughly. This might be, and I know nothing about it, accomplished by putting posts of your own and noting if they require any amount of proof, citation, source, or quote of any kind. I really hope this helps you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:35, 1 March 2014 (EST)

Thank you so much Emmanuel! Your ideas are superb and very helpful!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Melissa, these sites can be a boon for consumers in helping to identify unscrupulous businesses and thus avoiding them. The issue that I find with these sites, that's never been effectively dealt with, is how do they identify and remove potentially inaccurate comments attacking a business as a result of say, a personal vendetta by a disgruntled employee or a customer who was unreasonable. Many small and medium size businesses rely on word of mouth for new customers. If the site allows the comments to remain, it may affect the business. This in effect may lead to possible blackmail of businesses by threatening to post inaccurate information on these sites. I'm also very interested in the sample groups and postings that you choose. Great topic! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marissa, Excellent insight and the problems posed are valid. Your questions are helping to me and assist in narrowing the topic-which is clearly too broad at the moment.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Melissa, Just a quick note, because I loved your prospectus so much (it's such a creative take on the assignment, but still seems to hit on all the prof's requirements, really amazing job). With your '''Q1''', ''Why would one site be more popular?''- I can;t help but wonder, does the fact that it has such a simple, perfect 1-word URL have any effect? Also, due to the time (2007) & place (USA) I automatically assumed this website was somehow related to Obama's election campaign- though from quick Google search there doesn't seem to be any direct link. Anyways, just wanted to say, I really like your prospectus. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:49, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

:Hey Mike, it would absolutely be my pleasure to provide feedback to you. I won't go too far before having the time to focus & read it completely- so my first feedback to you is: if you didn't pick such an interesting topic, I would have actually read the full prospectus. However after reading your first paragraph, I ended up watching TPP and reading its subreddit and forgot to finish reading your prospectus! hahaha. But this weekend I'll spend time focusing and try to provide you feedback, hopefully as good as the feedback you gave me (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 10:34, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi Mike! After reading [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]]'s comments below, I'm kinda worried about posting my comments, cus I think I understood your questions from a different point of view.
::*First of all, my question- how do you approach your 2nd qualitative question? I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by vulnerability.
::*Second, my advice, feel free to take it or leave it: to keep within scope of this project (2500 word paper seems so short!), I believe it may be easier to tackle Qualitative questions #1 & 3, and your second quantitative question (''Has it helped or hurt the game to impose such controls?''). I get the impression that these questions would be the ones that would be easiest to answer from following the community discussion on the subreddit. That being said, if we were writing 8000 word papers, it would be so much fun for you to really dive into the architecture & UX of the game itself, while paralleling it with the subreddit(!!!). Really awesome topic & prospectus.
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:After reading your prospectus, I have a few questions based on your questions, or maybe some questions that combine the ones you already have. It seems clear from what you write in your prospectus that the user experience is absolutely vulnerable to the controls imposed by the game, but I'm curious to know in what ways. Were users bumping up against controls they didn't like before there were changes, or was it only after the controls of the creator were made clear (he made himself known in an explicit way, rather than operating quietly in the background) that users began to find fault? (Another way of thinking about this might be- were a lot of users thinking about the controls imposed by the game before the creator's changes forced them to think about it?) If I understand the current set up correctly, it seems that users still have the option to have commands parsed as they go instead of waiting for them to be tallied and then implemented. So, were the controls only seen as problematic once users considered that there was one person making a decision that affected every user? Is the lack of democratic decision-making behind the scenes a bigger problem for users than the actual changes in user experience?

:As far as your quantitative question goes, I'm wondering if there's any way for you to know how many users stopped playing the game after the creator made changes? Do you have a means of seeing the changes over time? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

Dear Michael,
I find your prospective very interesting! I thought to give you these few suggestions. I hope they will help! You might want to see what percentage of Flickr users are a part of the Creative Commons community and whether it consists of a majority or a minority. Another area of research might be into the other forms of control that Flickr uses to protect copyrighted material, and then to compare them with Creative Commons to see if they are as effective, prevalent, or well known. Also, when there are infringements in copyright policy, do people respond to correction or do they just ignore and continue violating the rules? Lastly, how does the Creative Commons community handle repeat violators (if there are any)? Wish you the best! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:43, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----

[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Lucia, This is looks to be very interesting - I was wondering if you can be more specific on what types of data the initiative is exploring. Are they looking for statistical data mainly, do you vote on what subjects you are going to put on the website or research? It looks like a great example of policy control via the government. I would to know more about the website and its overall goals - something that helps define its missions parameters, as I visited the website main page and got an idea of what they were saying - I am just needing some more clarity that's all. But again, the subject looks like a great idea and should be very interesting...[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 18:48, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Lucía!
I think your choice of study fits perfectly with the theme of the course! Perhaps you can also investigate to see if they are stifling public opinion or whether they are flooding the docs with pro-government voices to influence the theme towards their agenda? Also as a suggestion, can you see if it is truly open to everyone? Maybe you would like to find another similar program that the government has tried in the past (assuming that they have tried). Do the number of participants fluxuate? Is there a trend in what the government sees as inappropriate? Or is it just random edits that are corrected by the government? I hope these comments can help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:13, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:I second Jkelly's comment. This look very intriguing and I'd like to learn more about your plans for the project! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 23:14, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hello, Dan! Admittedly, I had never heard of “Anandtech.com” prior to reading your prospectus, but I’m glad that you told me about it. I really like their “Cable TVification” assessment of the internet in recent years. After reading your prospectus it seems to me that you are focusing on Lessig’s norms as regulators within the site’s forums, as well as “laws" instituted by the website. It is an interesting subject, because as you say, this particular forum is very successful in fostering an environment where users are likely to return. That said, I see that you qualify users of the site as “good,” and I’m curious to know how you will operationalize this term for your project. You mention words like “courteous” and “helpful,” but I’m wondering: what characteristics do you think you will look for when observing, in order to qualify a “good user.” For comparison, do you have an example of what behavior that “bad” users might entail? Lastly, I see that there are literally millions of post on the forum; you may wish to focus on a specific topic and/or date range in order to have a more manageable data set to observe. I’m interested to see what you’re project will entail, especially being that I am also observing forums for my project. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Vance, thanks for taking the time to look at my prospectus - Basically, what I meant to convey is that these are the characteristics of a "good" website, a website that demonstrates use and activity to by the administrators and its members/users. What I will be focusing in on is, how is the site's control policy administered and conveyed to its members, both historically and presently, through the links in my prospectus – and to answer your question about bad behavior in online forums, yes I will, as I think that is a critical component regarding context – And this also goes out too Marissa as well, what I really wanted to focus in on was how does bad behavior and is control policies in its forums, effect a webite economically - as I think ths would even go further towards Lessig's FOUR norms of regulation on where the dot lands - but for obvious reasons, that could end up being too big. However, I still might toss something like that in - My goal is to pick out a couple of instances of the control poliy being implemented and see what the results were based on specific incident/instance was there a ban and how long was it for - what was the reason, what was the community's response to that action and so forth... - Again, thanks for the input and suggestions.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Dan, forums have proven very useful mediums for learning and troubleshooting. What would be interesting is how forums deal with covert advertising I.e. Forum posters who may be businesses, subtly advertising their own goods or services under the guise of responding to threads without paying for advertising rights. Would paid advertisers pose potential conflicts of interest to the neutrality of forums? I'd also be interested in seeing how you compare the Anandtech's forum controls against others. Would you choose similar types of forums with respect to content type? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marrisa, I tried to include your response with Vance's up top :O) [[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Dan!
If you are mainly comparing Anandtech’s forum site policies, maybe you could also compare past versions of the rules? Also, you might want to see if Anandtech has any unique features in toxicity control that would make it standout from other less successful forums. Overall the concept is fantastic! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hi Emmanuel, thanks for the feedback - ya, I am going to try and put some type of onus on Anandtech as well, and see if some of their reactions to their policies could be considered a little over zealous or a bit too far reaching. Most times, their admins/moderators are pretty decent, but again, like everyone else, there are times when a few of their admins/moderators could be having a bad day and maybe be a little too heavy handed - we'll see, stay tuned to find out. just a little humor :o) Thanks again for the input.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:I also love the topic and find the subject very interesting! I share Castille's concerns above. It seems challenging to get access to the materials you will need to answer these questions. I wonder if there is an open forum somewhere in the internet where angry divorcees can go to vent about how social media ruined their marriage? It may be a biased site, but it may provide resources to other statistics or materials that may help? Or if there is a community you could observe and monitor the degree of online flirting? ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:48, 2 March 2014 (EST))

Wow very cool subject - and one I am sure that deserves a lot of attention these days. With that said, it seems that this subject matter could be a thesis or dissertation as the material collected probably seems to be endless. I was wondering what specific community are you going to target on facebook, as this looks to be potentially a very large paper? I have to admit that I am fascinated to see what other statistics this might uncover, as I am sure we all have heard stories of spouses leaving their significant other for someone they met online. Yet maybe, you can focus on something more specific then a facebook community - as there might be other communities or even forums that have support groups for such instances or circumstances that you mentioned earlier. Maybe seeing how they interact with each other and what rules or policies can be observed and commented on. Overall the topic is really great and I am sure it will have some very interesting content that is fascinating.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:13, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----
Very interesting subject matter Amy!

You may have selected one of the most controversial and highly emotional subjects out of all proposals presented. I would agree with Dancoron. The questions outlined could lead to a doctoral dissertation. Additionally, Castille does bring a good point to light, in that we are encouraged to avoid any work as an “alias”.

I think many of us are having trouble (to include myself) narrowing the research down to a tolerable amount of data collection for an in depth analysis.

In your proposal, you suggested comparing and contrasting divorce rates. What sources would you be comparing and contrasting? Are you speaking to different communities in the United States or on a larger level? Or, are you addressing the male/female divorce ratio?

Secondly, will you be cross-examining two nations who have access to Facebook, in efforts to compare and contrast divorce ratios in direct correlation to Facebook usage?

If your research goals are to use Facebook as the platform for study concerning divorce, it may be difficult to get access to this information unless you are accepted into a person’s profile, group or community. In efforts to stay objective, I don’t think you would want to study anyone that you personally know. Pornography could be a difficult study, in direct correlation to pornography with the controls Facebook allows for each individual user.

Would it be possible for you to follow a smaller, more open group that readily blogs/views pornography that is open to the public for data collection in a short period of time?

Unfortunately this is completely out of my arena. I have never been married and I don’t view porn sites. But, your topic is fabulously interesting.

Good luck with your research and I can’t wait to see your results.

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]! I love your topic. Your prospectus, combined with our brief discussions in class have really made me wonder- if 23andme is part of the first iteration of DNA decoding tools for personal use, where will we be in 25 years (: Just my general thoughts on this great topic- my comments specifically regarding your prospectus are below:
::*I really like that you asked whether the FDA is the best agency to regulate DNA testing, especially your last sentence ''what regulatory bodies outside of the FDA should be paying attention to this personalized and identifiable database?''. Throughout this class, I've had similar types of questions many times.
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, however it seems that the data you will collect (assessing changes in attitudes of community members) will be more apt to answer your 2nd question (''How has the ban on delivering health-related risk assessments to the 23andMe community impacted the consumer’s trust toward the product?''), rather than the underlined question that I referred to in my previous bullet.
:Please note that I am most interested in your underlined question regarding the FDA! However my advice is that your second question regarding attitudes & trust may be easier to study with respect to your methodology.
:[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST) - updated 03 March 2014 ~11pm

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Castille, fantastic topic! I like your approach to analysing this topic and its a subject which is very controversial & personal. I agree, the main challenge for any Government is to try and regulate the numerous blogs and hashtags on sites like Tumblr, effectively putting a suicide watch on them. Would this be an effective use of tax payer funds and how many suicides could this prevent? What would be the process be if a potential suicide victim was identified? We have to be careful not to act in a knee-jerk reaction when there is a death and expect the Government to do something about it. I think there needs to be a balance of responsibility between these site operators and the Government. I'm very interested in the outcome of your topic. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Greetings Watson!

A few questions:

How would you determine which distribution channel the Syrian opposition used the most?

How would you be able to detect the limitations of public information if it has not been disclosed?

If you were to select two media channels to compare/contrast, would there be enough data available in those two communities to properly “diagnose”, or is the data withheld from the public?

If you chart a paper on what capacitated the Syrian opposition groups to communicate their cause, will this information lead to a report or a true communal study on the Internet?

Very interesting proposal and I wish you the best in your research!

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:This is a very interesting topic. There is a lot to examine here, especially since a large part of the attacks and arguments happened online. An interesting topic would be to mention the Syrian Electronic Army and the many acts of online vandalism that they did. You can find more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Electronic_Army The Internet was certainly a tool in the conflict. An interesting focus would be to investigate their motives and the impact this electronic army had on the Syrian conflict.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:01, 3 March 2014 (EST)

------

*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Laura – Instagram is not only the biggest mobile photo sharing app, but is also now owned by Facebook, and thus a disproportionate amount of mobile peer to peer communication falls to the censorship whims of this company. This is an incredibly worthy area to research, if not lofty. Since Instagram now allows direct, private communication of photos, you have to wonder if there is a difference in how moderated these communications are versus a post intended for the public that uses hashtags (let us not forget that the hashtag’s original use was searchability, not irony). That said it might be very difficult monitor the differences in speed and effectiveness of what gets censored without interfering with the community you’re observing. One way may be to follow news events (such as this recent one: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9448993) that show Instagram’s policy enforcement in action. The issue with that approach is that it is cherry picking the successful takedowns rather than observing uncensored posts that are breaking the terms of service. Another option may be monitoring Instagram’s list of banned hashtags and searching synonyms or alternate hashtags, but again this is a difficult aspect of their policy to observe in action.
::I believe there is still strategizing to be done to design your observation of the community, above merely reporting their policy. I hope my take somehow helps you with this endeavor!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 09:55, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

:Hi Jon- My first thoughts on your prospectus have to do with scope. In comparing these three different games, I think there might be too many factors to consider-- subscription-based vs. free, PC vs. iOS, etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be more manageable to tackle your research questions if you focused in on two games that were more similar so that you have fewer variables to contend with when you're thinking about your research questions. My instinct is that working with WoW and League of Legends would work since you can still attempt to tackle each of Lessig's four forces. I'm not sure how much the law in the US varies from that in Finland, but removing Clash of Clans from the equation might help the narrow your scope in that sense as well. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:27, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Hi Ian, great topic and I like the innovative approach you're taking. I agree that social media is an important medium for Governments to gauge public mood or opinion. In fact, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott recently spent $4 million to analyse social media and gauge the public mood on certain policies he introduced. From my understanding, you're looking to build something like a mind map to organise the social media feedback and also meta tag it? This would effectively allow content to be searched and categorised similar to a knowledge base. Just a couple of questions though....How will you apply the cognitive map? Do you have a specific social media medium and Government in mind? Looking forward to reading the final outcome! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I was unaware of this community exits, and I think it will be a great place for graduate students and researchers to find which papers they should be reading. For example, if I need to utilize a method that is slightly outside of my field, this community will help identify the appropriate and esteemed papers. This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day). Because PubMed is already an exclusive database primarily for biomedical researchers, I am interested to what you observe. I am worried that because only pubmed users (or people using a University IP address) have access to pubmed articles, open access will play a minimal role in which articles spark more conversation. Unfortunately, people tend to converse about papers in high-impact journals like Nature and Science, and I would expect these articles to compete with the open access ones. Perhaps an observation of which articles receive complaints about not being open-access for the curious science lover who is no longer in academia may be an interesting perspective.. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 13:45, 2 March 2014 (EST))

:::Hi Paul! Thank you for introducing me to PubMed Commons! I have to agree with [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]: people who are 'allowed' to comment on PubMed articles often have access to most articles through their Universities or Institutions. That being said, since first reading your prospectus, I've thought so much about the access to PubMed Commons. In order to be part of the community, the major factor is that you are an author of a paper appearing in PubMed. An author can 'invite themselves' only if PubMed has your email address on file. For personal/professional interest of being a member of this site, I've checked with 8 different people (who are all corresponding authors on separate PubMed articles) whether they could invite themselves, and only 1 of the 8 authors could gain access. I understand why it is important for PubMed to confirm identity, however I believe this factor will strongly limit the adoption of PubMed Commons. It should also be noted that I am not an average PubMed author- most scientists I talked to about this think 'social media is stupid' or a waste of time. Very few will go through the trouble of asking 8 separate authors to try to log in, until they find one person who can. However, exactly as Margo pointed out, "This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day)".
:::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I can see where this topic would make an interesting focal point for a review article or commentary on the exploitation opportunities, (legal and criminal) that open source software packages like these permit. As an administrator of several IT systems myself, reading your prospectus has made me curious to learn more about NESSUS and Metasploit, and perhaps use them to test out weaknesses in my own servers.

::Let's continue along that thought...and say I will download and experiment with this software... I'm using this scenario "hypothetically" in hopes that it may help you focus more on the key question(s) you are hoping to answer, and to also consider "from where" you will be able to make some observations to address that question. In other words, where might you be able to follow some online community activity over the next few weeks, and observe some interactions between the users, developers, and IT administrators who work with these software packages?

::So, after just now learning of these open source packages, I want to download them on my Linux box and experiment. I want to see how others have installed, implemented, and customized the software to exploit a variety of possibilities. Is there an open community where I can lurk and maybe participate in a discussion to learn about various ways I can use this software to test out my servers for vulnerabilities and bugs? What kind of controls might I be subjected to within that community that may prevent me from discussing specifics about what known vulnerabilities have been discovered, and what security holes one can exploit? If I discover a major security flaw, can (or should) I document this within that online community? Are there normative, legal, and/or architectural controls that prevent or discourage divulging too much information within his community? I noticed a discussion forum at http://discussions.nessus.org/welcome, and https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit... would these be the communities you were considering?

::Anyway, hoping this helps out. I just wanted to raise these questions as a way to help you identify the specific online community where some observable activity will occur, and focus in on what controls you hope to be able to see playing-out during the rest of the semester. You may already have that in mind, but it wasn't in the prospectus, so I thought I'd raise the questions here. I think knowing the answer to these questions will help put the ideas into the context of the Final Project's objectives and should also help with the next task of building the outline in Assignment 3. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 14:25, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Twood. I find your paper topic to be incredibly interesting and well-thought out. I wish I had constructive criticism to give you, but I find that you are on the right path. My only question at the moment: how do you plan on measuring the response of community members to the each sites' control mechanisms? [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:41, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Twood, I find this to be a very cool topic and being a musician myself, makes it even more so. I have never ever been a fan of sampling music outright and then adding a new beat and some remixing to make it one's own, just not my style. I like the prospect of you examining a smaller or less commercialized community musically (as compared to You tube). Again, as own who owns small studio at home and records pretty solidly, it is always great to see musicians recording and producing their own stuff from scratch with small home studio setups. I hope you show an example of a community catching someone in the act of stealing another's music or idea and what the outcome of that interaction will be - because as musicians we always borrow, modify or improves someone else's cord progression or guitar lick to make it our own. So, it would be great to see if you could hint about that distinction - as I am sure it comes up a lot in communities like this. But, overall really nice topic to concentrate on.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----------

*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:You raise some great research questions to examine within these communities. You might want to narrow your focus more. Will you be talking about the legalities of “jail-breaking” and it’s effect on the Apple and Android market? Considering the topics we discussed in class, it might be interesting to develop your research to mention the view of major companies toward these forums and the rogue developers. Once an iphone is jail-broken, it losses its apple warranty coverage. This might be a topic you want to bring up with your research. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:36, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

Greetings Emmanuel,

You have selected a really “hot” topic. Mobile applications appear to be taking over actual web development these days. I’m in the process of creating a new site, for the general public, to locate assistance after they have been harmed by other entities. The developer of my site highly recommended that I create a mobile app at the same time. He is correct and the only reason I do not plan to follow his suggestion is directly related to cost.

I’m unclear of the real statistics, but Internet users seem to be using phones as their selected source of information more frequently than computers. Most people carry their phones (even to bed) but fewer seem to be in constant travel with their laptop.

I am not familiar with the sites you listed in your proposal since I am not a mobile application developer, but I am happy to learn there are forums to enhance applications through large communities.

It appears many of our classmates are attempting to use a compare/contrast approach, which seems logical, if we want to identify how resourceful one community is versus another. Your research will be extremely useful to many, and I would like to pass your results onto my developer after you have completed all the hard work (smile).

A few questions for you:

“I want to compare how useful and productive these web sites are to the users end for accomplishing these goals.”

1. How do you plan to compare and contrast the central 7-9 questions outlined in your proposal for the final project? In other words, will you be able to summarize the data from each research question in one succinct paragraph to meet the page requirements?
2. Do you think it would be easier to select 2-3 questions presented in your proposal to dig a little deeper or perhaps ask a few others from the class to join you on a team to cover all the questions presented?

I ask these questions, because I am struggling with these issues myself. I believe if I ask enough people in our community who are using a similar approach, I will (eventually) determine a model that may be useful for my own research.

Another suggestion: Could we potentially find a group of people in our research community (class) that are interested in using a similar approach, but still collectively analyze the communities we selected for personal purposes? In other words, I am certain most students have selected the entities of study for some reason, such as personal satisfaction or business achievement. However, Andy has made it clear that he would entertain teams multiple times. In fact, the option has been posted on every page of our instructions for the main project. In fact, the option has been posted so many times that I am beginning to think he may be giving us a subtle hint or clue: “This assignment will be more effective if you work collectively together and you may gain more valuable research by teaming”. I don’t read minds, but…

Example:

I am attempting to look at the effectiveness of two sites created to allegedly help people who have been taken advantage of by either an entity or a person. Section 203 under the Communication Decency Act assists people in their ability to say whatever they think, regardless if correct.

You are comparing two mobile application sites to analyze how useful and productive the sites are for the users to include accuracy and validity.

Marissa is researching the validity of airbnb.com, and looking at the controls put in place by the website to protect people.

I still have many proposals to read today, but it does appear that many of us are running in a few general hypothetical areas of question:

Which site is more effective due to the controls implemented by the site itself? (Compare/Contrast)

Can the data on these sites be considered valid? Is so, why or why not?

Could we potentially work together on a research methodology for all three sites to compare and contrast if the model is effective in and of itself while measuring the data across the board for multiple communications? In summary, we could compare and contrast the model that we collectively created against the sites we personally selected.

My biggest concern with many of our proposals is that they are too broad and we will not find the depth. Most of our topics could be potential dissertations; unfortunately we are lacking 5 years of research time (smile). I plan to look for commonality in proposals submitted-perhaps we can all make this better together. Could we potentially try to use our class community to research the depth of the Internet communities.?

Just thoughts.

Cheers!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 17:07, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
Hi Emmanuel,

Great topic!!
I am not sure if you would like to go into that direction, but from my point of view, I would say there is a big difference in the active level between iphone users via Android users in forum.
Iphone users are usually not as active as Android users in forum. And I think this is a really interesting topic to look into.

On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea to narrow down your topic as there are 9 research questions that you are planning to coverin your paper. It would be difficult to talk about each question in depth with the words limit.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:42, 4 March 2014 (EST)
----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

::Hi [[User:Seifip|Seifip]]! Few bits of feedback for you. First of all, I like that you tied back to Lessig's regulators. Very strong prospectus overall. Second, I wonder how you define an ''effective way of shaping an online community'' ? I assume that you didn't define 'effective' because of the 400-word limit for this assignment. My advice would be for you to perhaps draw specific comparisons between StackOverflow and another online developer support community. Alternatively (and perhaps more fun), you might change the phrasing of your research question to something like 'In what ways does X architectural element affect conversation on StackOverflow?'. Overall though, I think this is a very strong topic for your final project, because developer communities are some of the most in-depth technical discussions on the web. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

::You raise some great ideas in your prospectus that would make for an interesting research paper around Etsy. However, I wonder if it might be best to focus more on the controls for which you can already observe playing out within the Etsy community's online activities? In other words, the community norms and architecture controls within Etsy itself (user-"self-regulation" and Etsy's-"private-regulation") might be the most reliable "observable data" that you will be able to anticipate over the next few weeks. The government level controls (public-regulation) you suggest may require moving outside this community, and I am not sure that a useful discussion (with observational data) will be possible within the page limit, nor would it be crucial to answering your research question.

::I like the research question very much, and I think it couches the challenges you hope to observe within the methodology you propose. Also, I anticipate that the community interactions over the next couple of months should provide you with enough observational data to answer your question. One more tip on the question... What would you think about starting the question with "How" rather than "Do"...? Play around with the phrase of your question, and see how it feels. My thinking is that you will allow yourself some flexibility in what you will truly have to report on when it comes time to write up the results. The answer to a "Do" question requires one to choose a yes or no and your findings will likely challenge any "absolute" judgment call... So don't let yourself get cornered into having to make that choice (at least not at this early stage). By starting the question with "How do Etsy’s regulations...", will allow you to have more flexibility to report on what the observations will show, and your can balance your discussion section on some good and not-so-good controls that play out over the next few weeks.

::Last point. In your sentence "I intend to identify how Etsy controls, or fails to control content in a manner that is advantageous to their users.", I wasn't sure if by "users" you meant the buyers, sellers, or both. My mind is interpreting that "user" is the buyer in this sentence’s context, and the word "content" is used to define both the items and community sellers that are being controlled. True? That distinction may be important to clarify as the full report gets written, because the Etsy controls and observations being gathered will (I suspect) impact buyers vs sellers vs content each a little differently. On a similar note... To cut down on the need to follow every buyer, seller and thing in "Top Searches" for this community, do you think it would be helpful to focus on just one type of craft? I don't know enough about Etsy specifically to determine if that would work for this project, but it might be another way to find a sub-group/sub-community limit, and still provide you with enough observational data to draw some conclusions.

::Hoping these comments are helpful! [[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:22, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

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

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::I really like the focal point you will be observing, and you are quite right in pointing out that this "negativity" is becoming an unfortunate reality for many "open comment" sections within these online spaces. Even what can begin as constructive dialog and healthy debate, can quickly degenerate into blather, flames, and hate words when anonymity can be so effectively used as a shield. Interestingly, we can't always point our finger at just one "troll" injecting some deliberate provocation...because sometimes the breakdown occurs with the 3 or 4 community members who (hither to) we're exchanging words in a perfectly eloquent & respectful manner. But the hate, racism, and bullying that poison the dialog on these comment-boards are on a much more disturbing level, and one that certainly will make for an interesting study.

::So, The broad question that I am hearing in your prospectus is "What are the most important controls that an online service provider can successfully implement to intercept and discourage cyberbullying, hate-speech, and irrelevant negativity? The sub-question then would be "How effective and/or constraining are those controls on the community's ability to engage with each other in a meaningful unbiased dialog about the content? (YouTube in this example)?

::Have you given some thought to the subject matter that you will focus on, as a way to observe how these comments progress? It may be helpful to put your lens onto a consistent subject to observe the cycle of communication. From there you should be able to witness what prompts the conversation to begin in the first place; when do counter-points get introduced, how long is constructive dialog able to bridge back and fourth, what is the "poison-pill" that kills the conversation, and when do the controls kick-in?. (Observing where the controls kick in would obviously be the essential part to report on, not so much each of those elements of the cycle of communication I itemized there.)

::I’d be curious to also know if the observation shows that the cycle of communication is more (or less) positive throughout based on the type of subject that initiates the conversation? News stories on "hot button" topics or baseball contrasted with (say) a page dealing with baking fudge probably have different trajectories of "success" in remaining positive. (I am thinking about the inherent behavior of the potential community members themselves… one lends itself to polarized opinions with predictable “zealots” appearing in either camp, while the other community may be more welcoming of differing opinions and tastes). SO for example, thinking of an individual wearing that New York Yankees hat in Fenway Park on game day....vs... a group of bakers talking about chocolate vs. peanut butter fudge recipes…The former is likely to risk some taunting, a black eye, a broken tooth, and perhaps a small riot... while those in the latter group, might, at worst, receive only a cavity. Anyway, my point is that it might be interesting compare a couple of focused topics of conversation as a way of discovering a smaller sub-community that builds around a YouTube comment-board (With one engaging in a "Hot button" topic.... While the other group is discussing something seemingly non-polarizing.)[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:00, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Ben. While I think your prospectus brings up the interesting and very pertinent topic of government control, surveillance, and censorship, I think that it is simply far too broad of a topic. For the assignment, we are supposed to monitor the activities of users on a particular site or group of sites, but looking at the internet as a whole is far too much for an 8-10 page paper! Perhaps consider government control, surveillance, and censorship while observing a particular website that has been named as a victim (by the media) of NSA's surveillance and dig deeper there. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 13:02, 28 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Patricia, First off, love your idea, moderating internet speech, as well as your methodology: if what you want to measure is moderating behavior, norms, and free speech concerns, the “Politics & Leaders” forum is a fantastic place to do so since It appears that discussions there can turn from heated to vituperative in the blink of an eye! With respect to your research question, by specifying “effective,” I assume that you will quantify instances of behavior that violate the established rules of the site. This method is good since you give yourself a verifiable and quantifiable measure. You can then use Lessig’s and other scholars work to explain these data. Now, you say that you wish to "research the rules and regulations of the site,” which looks like it might be an insurmountable task. I visited the site’s “Super Editor handbook” and I see that it is quite extensive. Perhaps you might want to focus specifically on one type of violation, such as "3.4.1 Discouraged Ranking Themes - Personal Experience / Personal Preference Rankings” ? [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:As an extension student and a reader of both sites, I agree that extension student is often more accurate especially due to the required affiliation. You should consider when collecting your data that often information is not so black and white. A lot of people on these treads seek opinion, which is more of a personal thought rather than right or wrong. A lot on forums is opinion based, not fact based and so I think you should prepare for your data to be filled with a lot of gray areas, which you might already be expecting. The correlation between accuracy and monitoring is certainty an interesting topic. Anyway, great research topic and I’m interested to see your findings. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:20, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Tom, intriguing topic! I'm a keen follower of the Bitcoin revolution myself so have been naturally drawn to your prospectus and Daniel's as well. However I would say its quite difficult to follow your proposal. I'm not quite sure how you intend to analyse and measure the use of cryptocurrency in conflict zones. Which conflict areas will you be targeting? Do you intend to follow forums or analyse chatter on various websites. If so, which ones? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:36, 2 March 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Julie, great prospectus. I find the whole North Korea situation appalling from a global response perspective. A lot of the articles, commentary and reactions from people around the world have been effectively muzzled. Your approach to analyse public reaction through social media is methodical and well thought through. Your plan to use specific tools to collect information from twitter hash tags, Google trends etc and follow up by analysing them to find common themes and trends is great. I look forward to reading the final report! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:52, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

::Andrew, your prospectus sounds fantastic. Lots of interesting questions being asked in light of Lessig's Four Forces and the Quantified Self movement. I think that you many be asking too many questions for an 8-10 page paper, if you are to go into sufficient depth for each one. Do you think that it's realistic to answer the five research questions in so short of a paper? Other than that, I think you are off to a great start and I am interested in hearing more about it. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:49, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-03-04T04:14:25Z

Twood: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

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

This assignment is due on February 25. 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 5 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!

----
*Name: Jolie Ho - Wan Lap Ho
*Instagram vs Flickr
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Jolie_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 16:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How do you propose to collect data to answer the last question? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:22, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Hey Jolie! You picked a really fascinating topic to cover! Just a few thoughts I hope will help. How do you plan on pinpointing how all the users behave differently, just because there are so many registered accounts you might be able to find people who behave nearly the same or certain individuals who have accounts on both Instagram and Flickr. Just as a mere suggestion maybe you can find a niche that is unique to each site and compare them? Maybe Instagram has thousands of pictures of food and seflis while Flickr has more professional content? I hope this will help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:15, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::I really like your topic to dive into why Instagram has been so successful compared to Flicker. It may be interesting to compare the age groups of each users. Instagram seems more accessible because it is a phone app that is simple and immediate to use, whereas Flicker users upload a batch of vacation photos, etc. I like Emmanuel's suggestion to compare the content between users. Another suggestion which relates to the selfies/food photos may be to compare the users themselves. I think older people tend to use Flickr and therefore may not post as much. However, younger people (who no long user facebook) posting to instagram all the time would provide a way for facebook to get back that market. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:31, 2 March 2014 (EST))
----

*Name: Drogowski - Daniel Rogowski
*Regulating Digital Currencies: The Bitcoin Conundrum
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Regulating_Digital_Currencies-_The_Bitcoin_Conundrum_Daniel_Rogowski.docx
[[User:Drogowski|Drogowski]] 14:58, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: How would this differ from other imaginary items of trade like currency/commodity derivatives and futures and virtual commodities like pork bellies? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:17, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Daniel,
What an interesting topic! I was not even aware that state governments recognized these currencies. Would you be able to come up with more material if you focus on one or two countries and their reaction to the online currency? Also Ichua gave great advice; maybe one country’s reaction and policies to multiple online currencies would help in the scope of observation. Your idea of creating a website to report and share your findings is really novel! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::
Very interesting topic Daniel. Ive been following the progress of Bitcoin as a personal interest. Apart from the regulatory challenges Bitcoin poses for Governments, its also vulnerable to cyber attacks which can erode trust in using the currency. Whilst the actual Bitcoin itself is heavily encrypted, the Bitcoin exchanges are vulnerable to hacking and cyber theft as evidenced recently by the successful attacks on Mt Gox, one of the world's largest Bitcoin exchanges. It would be interesting to observe the effect (if any) this would have on the regulatory view of the currency by Governments. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----
*Pseudonym: Marissa1989
*Prospectus title: The rise of the collaborative consumption movement: Analyzing effective control of communication, structures of gaining trust & verification, and legal issues.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_Barkey-2.pdf
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi, Marissa! I used AirBnB to rent out my apartment last summer and it actually resulted in me being robbed by the person to the tune of $10,000-- not including the rent for the summer, which he didn't pay (I didn't get any of it back, either, despite the insurance). It was a nasty situation. Anyways, from what I understand, the majority of communication on AirBnB is done privately. Without staging anything or intervening, how do you plan to observe enough to answer your question(s)? I think this is basically the same concern with one of the other treatments I read, regarding Facebook. I do think the security of platforms like AirBnB is of great concern and would be a very interesting subject to study in depth![[User:Castille|Castille]] 21:16, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Dear Marissa,
I loved the idea for your prospectus! Just as a suggestion, would you consider comparing a few corresponding sites like 9flats, Couchsurfing International, or Hospitality Club? You could analyze how they handle different verifiability and security issues while also comparing how the sites are constructed to better “vet” their users. This may yield insight on how trustworthy their users are to each other. You might even want to inquire if one has had “major” legal issues in the past. I hope this helps! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:32, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----
Greetings Marissa!

Your topic is very interesting and it appears we have a few of the same elements in the companies we have selected to research: Verification and trust. From what I understand, you are addressing issues of users on auction/garage sale platforms surrounding the tiers of user verifiability. In other words, who is protecting one user from being taken advantage of by another user.

The comment you posted on the wiki under my topic in regards to the effectiveness of how the sites that I have selected deal with inaccurate comments made about companies by the general public are dealt with is of great importance-the public can ruin a business for no other reason than spite. In other words, who protects the companies from users.

The proposal you submitted intrigues me in many ways. By studying the community of airbnb.com, it appears you will be analyzing the controls implemented to make the site successful (verification, quality feedback, security, payment, userability and collaboration).

In summary, it appears we are both working on protection issues, and if the verification process is significant enough to gain consumer trust.

Would you mind if I ask how you plan to analyze the user? I would be interested in your methodology, and we may even find each other’s approach helpful to each other. We may even be able to compare and contrast the communities with a similar approach and work together if you would be interested.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:18, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 18:36, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Change.org vrs Ripp Off Report
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_Research_Paper-Final.docx

Dear Melissa,
What a great topic and area of coverage!!! I’m hoping my comments and questions will be of help to you! Which site succumbs more readily to outside pressure and take down requests? Also you mentioned that a susceptible compliant to both is that they are accused of not “vetting” their sources. You could possible test to see which one (if either of them do) checks them more thoroughly. This might be, and I know nothing about it, accomplished by putting posts of your own and noting if they require any amount of proof, citation, source, or quote of any kind. I really hope this helps you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:35, 1 March 2014 (EST)

Thank you so much Emmanuel! Your ideas are superb and very helpful!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Melissa, these sites can be a boon for consumers in helping to identify unscrupulous businesses and thus avoiding them. The issue that I find with these sites, that's never been effectively dealt with, is how do they identify and remove potentially inaccurate comments attacking a business as a result of say, a personal vendetta by a disgruntled employee or a customer who was unreasonable. Many small and medium size businesses rely on word of mouth for new customers. If the site allows the comments to remain, it may affect the business. This in effect may lead to possible blackmail of businesses by threatening to post inaccurate information on these sites. I'm also very interested in the sample groups and postings that you choose. Great topic! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marissa, Excellent insight and the problems posed are valid. Your questions are helping to me and assist in narrowing the topic-which is clearly too broad at the moment.
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 13:17, 3 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Melissa, Just a quick note, because I loved your prospectus so much (it's such a creative take on the assignment, but still seems to hit on all the prof's requirements, really amazing job). With your '''Q1''', ''Why would one site be more popular?''- I can;t help but wonder, does the fact that it has such a simple, perfect 1-word URL have any effect? Also, due to the time (2007) & place (USA) I automatically assumed this website was somehow related to Obama's election campaign- though from quick Google search there doesn't seem to be any direct link. Anyways, just wanted to say, I really like your prospectus. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:49, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 14:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Twitch Plays Pokémon – How Mediating Gameplay Changes the Game
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson_Assignment2.docx

:Hey Mike, it would absolutely be my pleasure to provide feedback to you. I won't go too far before having the time to focus & read it completely- so my first feedback to you is: if you didn't pick such an interesting topic, I would have actually read the full prospectus. However after reading your first paragraph, I ended up watching TPP and reading its subreddit and forgot to finish reading your prospectus! hahaha. But this weekend I'll spend time focusing and try to provide you feedback, hopefully as good as the feedback you gave me (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 10:34, 28 February 2014 (EST)

::Hi Mike! After reading [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]]'s comments below, I'm kinda worried about posting my comments, cus I think I understood your questions from a different point of view.
::*First of all, my question- how do you approach your 2nd qualitative question? I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by vulnerability.
::*Second, my advice, feel free to take it or leave it: to keep within scope of this project (2500 word paper seems so short!), I believe it may be easier to tackle Qualitative questions #1 & 3, and your second quantitative question (''Has it helped or hurt the game to impose such controls?''). I get the impression that these questions would be the ones that would be easiest to answer from following the community discussion on the subreddit. That being said, if we were writing 8000 word papers, it would be so much fun for you to really dive into the architecture & UX of the game itself, while paralleling it with the subreddit(!!!). Really awesome topic & prospectus.
::[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:After reading your prospectus, I have a few questions based on your questions, or maybe some questions that combine the ones you already have. It seems clear from what you write in your prospectus that the user experience is absolutely vulnerable to the controls imposed by the game, but I'm curious to know in what ways. Were users bumping up against controls they didn't like before there were changes, or was it only after the controls of the creator were made clear (he made himself known in an explicit way, rather than operating quietly in the background) that users began to find fault? (Another way of thinking about this might be- were a lot of users thinking about the controls imposed by the game before the creator's changes forced them to think about it?) If I understand the current set up correctly, it seems that users still have the option to have commands parsed as they go instead of waiting for them to be tallied and then implemented. So, were the controls only seen as problematic once users considered that there was one person making a decision that affected every user? Is the lack of democratic decision-making behind the scenes a bigger problem for users than the actual changes in user experience?

:As far as your quantitative question goes, I'm wondering if there's any way for you to know how many users stopped playing the game after the creator made changes? Do you have a means of seeing the changes over time? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*How does the online Flickr community operate within the Creative Commons feature? How do they share their work, and work together?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus_for_final_paper_Michael_Thomas.docx

Dear Michael,
I find your prospective very interesting! I thought to give you these few suggestions. I hope they will help! You might want to see what percentage of Flickr users are a part of the Creative Commons community and whether it consists of a majority or a minority. Another area of research might be into the other forms of control that Flickr uses to protect copyrighted material, and then to compare them with Creative Commons to see if they are as effective, prevalent, or well known. Also, when there are infringements in copyright policy, do people respond to correction or do they just ignore and continue violating the rules? Lastly, how does the Creative Commons community handle repeat violators (if there are any)? Wish you the best! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:43, 1 March 2014 (EST)

----
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 10:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Framework of control in government run collaborative platform
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_2_LGS.docx‎

: Hi Lucia, are there specified rules of engagement so that government effort to filter or modify inappropriate inputs are minimized? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:32, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Lucia, This is looks to be very interesting - I was wondering if you can be more specific on what types of data the initiative is exploring. Are they looking for statistical data mainly, do you vote on what subjects you are going to put on the website or research? It looks like a great example of policy control via the government. I would to know more about the website and its overall goals - something that helps define its missions parameters, as I visited the website main page and got an idea of what they were saying - I am just needing some more clarity that's all. But again, the subject looks like a great idea and should be very interesting...[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 18:48, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Lucía!
I think your choice of study fits perfectly with the theme of the course! Perhaps you can also investigate to see if they are stifling public opinion or whether they are flooding the docs with pro-government voices to influence the theme towards their agenda? Also as a suggestion, can you see if it is truly open to everyone? Maybe you would like to find another similar program that the government has tried in the past (assuming that they have tried). Do the number of participants fluxuate? Is there a trend in what the government sees as inappropriate? Or is it just random edits that are corrected by the government? I hope these comments can help you! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:13, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
*Assignment 2:
*Gendered Online Communities: Targeted Harassment and Successful Interventions
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:akk22_assignment2.docx
*[[User:akk22|akk22]] 10:23, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I'd really like to read and comment on your prospectus, but it seems like the file didn't upload. Happy to respond to it once it's up!
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:57, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:I second Jkelly's comment. This look very intriguing and I'd like to learn more about your plans for the project! [[User:Twood|Twood]] 23:14, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Assignment 2:

*Can websites with online forums, control the behavior of its members for the sake of growth?

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dan_Coronado_assignmen_2b.docx

[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Hello, Dan! Admittedly, I had never heard of “Anandtech.com” prior to reading your prospectus, but I’m glad that you told me about it. I really like their “Cable TVification” assessment of the internet in recent years. After reading your prospectus it seems to me that you are focusing on Lessig’s norms as regulators within the site’s forums, as well as “laws" instituted by the website. It is an interesting subject, because as you say, this particular forum is very successful in fostering an environment where users are likely to return. That said, I see that you qualify users of the site as “good,” and I’m curious to know how you will operationalize this term for your project. You mention words like “courteous” and “helpful,” but I’m wondering: what characteristics do you think you will look for when observing, in order to qualify a “good user.” For comparison, do you have an example of what behavior that “bad” users might entail? Lastly, I see that there are literally millions of post on the forum; you may wish to focus on a specific topic and/or date range in order to have a more manageable data set to observe. I’m interested to see what you’re project will entail, especially being that I am also observing forums for my project. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

: Hi Vance, thanks for taking the time to look at my prospectus - Basically, what I meant to convey is that these are the characteristics of a "good" website, a website that demonstrates use and activity to by the administrators and its members/users. What I will be focusing in on is, how is the site's control policy administered and conveyed to its members, both historically and presently, through the links in my prospectus – and to answer your question about bad behavior in online forums, yes I will, as I think that is a critical component regarding context – And this also goes out too Marissa as well, what I really wanted to focus in on was how does bad behavior and is control policies in its forums, effect a webite economically - as I think ths would even go further towards Lessig's FOUR norms of regulation on where the dot lands - but for obvious reasons, that could end up being too big. However, I still might toss something like that in - My goal is to pick out a couple of instances of the control poliy being implemented and see what the results were based on specific incident/instance was there a ban and how long was it for - what was the reason, what was the community's response to that action and so forth... - Again, thanks for the input and suggestions.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi Dan, forums have proven very useful mediums for learning and troubleshooting. What would be interesting is how forums deal with covert advertising I.e. Forum posters who may be businesses, subtly advertising their own goods or services under the guise of responding to threads without paying for advertising rights. Would paid advertisers pose potential conflicts of interest to the neutrality of forums? I'd also be interested in seeing how you compare the Anandtech's forum controls against others. Would you choose similar types of forums with respect to content type? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Marrisa, I tried to include your response with Vance's up top :O) [[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hey Dan!
If you are mainly comparing Anandtech’s forum site policies, maybe you could also compare past versions of the rules? Also, you might want to see if Anandtech has any unique features in toxicity control that would make it standout from other less successful forums. Overall the concept is fantastic! [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:16, 3 March 2014 (EST)

Hi Emmanuel, thanks for the feedback - ya, I am going to try and put some type of onus on Anandtech as well, and see if some of their reactions to their policies could be considered a little over zealous or a bit too far reaching. Most times, their admins/moderators are pretty decent, but again, like everyone else, there are times when a few of their admins/moderators could be having a bad day and maybe be a little too heavy handed - we'll see, stay tuned to find out. just a little humor :o) Thanks again for the input.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 09:59, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Assignment Two:

*A Web of Lies and Licentious Lure: Temptation, Divorce, and the Internet

* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Divorce_and_the_Internet_Harvard_Project.docx

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 17:24, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:First of all, GREAT TITLE!!! Second of all, this seems like an extremely interesting subject and I'd love to read more about it. I do wonder whether you'll be able to get access to the material you might be looking for by doing "undercover investigation" and the other research methods you listed. It seems to me that the kind of exchanges you're discussing would be difficult to observe on Facebook as they likely wouldn't be out in the open. I may be completely mistaken, but I was also under the impression that the assignment encouraged examining a more open forum or something of the like where observation was more feasible. I know that there are public matchmaking sites and I would assume there are also forums geared towards those who wish to have illicit affairs, so that might be an area into which you may want to delve. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:I also love the topic and find the subject very interesting! I share Castille's concerns above. It seems challenging to get access to the materials you will need to answer these questions. I wonder if there is an open forum somewhere in the internet where angry divorcees can go to vent about how social media ruined their marriage? It may be a biased site, but it may provide resources to other statistics or materials that may help? Or if there is a community you could observe and monitor the degree of online flirting? ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 14:48, 2 March 2014 (EST))

Wow very cool subject - and one I am sure that deserves a lot of attention these days. With that said, it seems that this subject matter could be a thesis or dissertation as the material collected probably seems to be endless. I was wondering what specific community are you going to target on facebook, as this looks to be potentially a very large paper? I have to admit that I am fascinated to see what other statistics this might uncover, as I am sure we all have heard stories of spouses leaving their significant other for someone they met online. Yet maybe, you can focus on something more specific then a facebook community - as there might be other communities or even forums that have support groups for such instances or circumstances that you mentioned earlier. Maybe seeing how they interact with each other and what rules or policies can be observed and commented on. Overall the topic is really great and I am sure it will have some very interesting content that is fascinating.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:13, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----
Very interesting subject matter Amy!

You may have selected one of the most controversial and highly emotional subjects out of all proposals presented. I would agree with Dancoron. The questions outlined could lead to a doctoral dissertation. Additionally, Castille does bring a good point to light, in that we are encouraged to avoid any work as an “alias”.

I think many of us are having trouble (to include myself) narrowing the research down to a tolerable amount of data collection for an in depth analysis.

In your proposal, you suggested comparing and contrasting divorce rates. What sources would you be comparing and contrasting? Are you speaking to different communities in the United States or on a larger level? Or, are you addressing the male/female divorce ratio?

Secondly, will you be cross-examining two nations who have access to Facebook, in efforts to compare and contrast divorce ratios in direct correlation to Facebook usage?

If your research goals are to use Facebook as the platform for study concerning divorce, it may be difficult to get access to this information unless you are accepted into a person’s profile, group or community. In efforts to stay objective, I don’t think you would want to study anyone that you personally know. Pornography could be a difficult study, in direct correlation to pornography with the controls Facebook allows for each individual user.

Would it be possible for you to follow a smaller, more open group that readily blogs/views pornography that is open to the public for data collection in a short period of time?

Unfortunately this is completely out of my arena. I have never been married and I don’t view porn sites. But, your topic is fabulously interesting.

Good luck with your research and I can’t wait to see your results.

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:29, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Assignment Two:
*Who has the right to control our personal genetic information?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Monroe_Assignment_Two.docx

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 18:30, 23 February 2014 (EST)
: Hi Margo, I'm not sure if you'll ever read this, but if you do, would you by any chance be interested in working on your project in a group? I'm highly interested in this topic (in part because I'm considering founding my next startup in this field), and I've been following it both from a distance as an observer, and from the inside as a customer of 23andMe. I'd love to dig deeper and work with you on this project. Cheers, Philip Seyfi --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:28, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Hi [[User:Margorm|Margorm]]! I love your topic. Your prospectus, combined with our brief discussions in class have really made me wonder- if 23andme is part of the first iteration of DNA decoding tools for personal use, where will we be in 25 years (: Just my general thoughts on this great topic- my comments specifically regarding your prospectus are below:
::*I really like that you asked whether the FDA is the best agency to regulate DNA testing, especially your last sentence ''what regulatory bodies outside of the FDA should be paying attention to this personalized and identifiable database?''. Throughout this class, I've had similar types of questions many times.
::*It is '''very''' cool that you are taking an empirical approach to the community discussion, however it seems that the data you will collect (assessing changes in attitudes of community members) will be more apt to answer your 2nd question (''How has the ban on delivering health-related risk assessments to the 23andMe community impacted the consumer’s trust toward the product?''), rather than the underlined question that I referred to in my previous bullet.
:Please note that I am most interested in your underlined question regarding the FDA! However my advice is that your second question regarding attitudes & trust may be easier to study with respect to your methodology.
:[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:07, 25 February 2014 (EST) - updated 03 March 2014 ~11pm

----

[[User:Castille|Castille]] 18:58, 22 February 2014 (EST)
*Assignment Two:
*LESS IS MORE?; Tumblr's Policies Against Self-Harm
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_TWO.doc

::Castille, I think you have a really excellent topic here. My first thought is that it would probably be helpful to choose a particular self-harming behavior that's discussed on Tumblr to help narrow the scope of your work. Additionally, while these issues can and often are related, I imagine that the Tumblr communities that surround each issue probably have a distinct culture. This topic makes me think of the Jessica McKenzie piece, "Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag" we read in week four. I would be curious to know how many of the controversial hashtags are actually used in subversive ways. Some of the reactions to Tumblr's policy change seem to touch on this when users write that they use these tags to address their own struggle with self-harming behavior. After these policy changes got some press, did it shed enough light on these self-harm blogs to inspire users to use these potentially triggering hashtags in new and positive ways?
::[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 13:56, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for your feedback! I'm planning to narrow the scope to primarily center on pro-suicide blog postings, but I think I'll have to use some other examples such as cutting and possibly even pro-eating disorder blogs, as they all seem to interact with each other. It appears from my research thus far that the communities are intrinsically linked much more so than I expected. I agree, it would be interesting to see if things have changed-- though I'm not quite sure how to gauge pre-policy versus post-policy changes. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them! [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Castille, fantastic topic! I like your approach to analysing this topic and its a subject which is very controversial & personal. I agree, the main challenge for any Government is to try and regulate the numerous blogs and hashtags on sites like Tumblr, effectively putting a suicide watch on them. Would this be an effective use of tax payer funds and how many suicides could this prevent? What would be the process be if a potential suicide victim was identified? We have to be careful not to act in a knee-jerk reaction when there is a death and expect the Government to do something about it. I think there needs to be a balance of responsibility between these site operators and the Government. I'm very interested in the outcome of your topic. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:47, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Watson
*To Publish Or Not: Social Media and the Syrian Conflict
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Greetings Watson!

A few questions:

How would you determine which distribution channel the Syrian opposition used the most?

How would you be able to detect the limitations of public information if it has not been disclosed?

If you were to select two media channels to compare/contrast, would there be enough data available in those two communities to properly “diagnose”, or is the data withheld from the public?

If you chart a paper on what capacitated the Syrian opposition groups to communicate their cause, will this information lead to a report or a true communal study on the Internet?

Very interesting proposal and I wish you the best in your research!

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 20:47, 3 March 2014 (EST)

:This is a very interesting topic. There is a lot to examine here, especially since a large part of the attacks and arguments happened online. An interesting topic would be to mention the Syrian Electronic Army and the many acts of online vandalism that they did. You can find more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Electronic_Army The Internet was certainly a tool in the conflict. An interesting focus would be to investigate their motives and the impact this electronic army had on the Syrian conflict.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:01, 3 March 2014 (EST)

------
*Assignment 2
* Instagram: a public space for free expression?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LRS_IS_prospectus.docx
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 21:42, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Laura – Instagram is not only the biggest mobile photo sharing app, but is also now owned by Facebook, and thus a disproportionate amount of mobile peer to peer communication falls to the censorship whims of this company. This is an incredibly worthy area to research, if not lofty. Since Instagram now allows direct, private communication of photos, you have to wonder if there is a difference in how moderated these communications are versus a post intended for the public that uses hashtags (let us not forget that the hashtag’s original use was searchability, not irony). That said it might be very difficult monitor the differences in speed and effectiveness of what gets censored without interfering with the community you’re observing. One way may be to follow news events (such as this recent one: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9448993) that show Instagram’s policy enforcement in action. The issue with that approach is that it is cherry picking the successful takedowns rather than observing uncensored posts that are breaking the terms of service. Another option may be monitoring Instagram’s list of banned hashtags and searching synonyms or alternate hashtags, but again this is a difficult aspect of their policy to observe in action.
::I believe there is still strategizing to be done to design your observation of the community, above merely reporting their policy. I hope my take somehow helps you with this endeavor!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 09:55, 1 March 2014 (EST)

::Hi, Laura! I think Instagram is a really great topic and will provide a massive amount of material, which I think can be beneficial and detrimental. It seems you might want to consider focusing on a specific aspect of censorship on Instagram, like nudity, drug references, or profanity (if any of those are prohibited-- I don't know their specific terms of use). What aspect of Instagram's censorship do you find to have the highest potential to become problematic? Is their choice as a company to disallow certain messages/images actually infringing on free speech, when they don't have any power over whether an individual chooses to express himself (IE he/she is still capable of posting the material on another site), they merely control/monitor the postings on their own site? [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:19, 28 February 2014 (EST)
----
* [[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)
* Comparing Regulation of Free Expression in Online Game Forums
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Prospectus-Radoff.txt Prospectus Text]

:Hi Jon- My first thoughts on your prospectus have to do with scope. In comparing these three different games, I think there might be too many factors to consider-- subscription-based vs. free, PC vs. iOS, etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be more manageable to tackle your research questions if you focused in on two games that were more similar so that you have fewer variables to contend with when you're thinking about your research questions. My instinct is that working with WoW and League of Legends would work since you can still attempt to tackle each of Lessig's four forces. I'm not sure how much the law in the US varies from that in Finland, but removing Clash of Clans from the equation might help the narrow your scope in that sense as well. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 14:27, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----
* jkelly
* Does "toxic" online culture stifle feminist discourse?
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment_2.odt
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:15, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Jane – It is a great idea to compare feminist discussion within the confines of a feminist-oriented website to discussion in a public space without this slant. The regulations on discussion are obviously going to be wildly different in each of these communities. You identify Facebook and Twitter as less thoughtful in their discussion for feminist topics - perhaps as a result of their differences in comment policy? I was interested in the comment policy of Bitch Media that you mentioned in the prospectus, so I looked it up. (For others: it can be found here: http://bitchmagazine.org/comments-policy) One line that stood out to me was the following: “As far as moderation of this space goes, guest bloggers moderate the comments on their respective posts, but website moderators will step in when necessary.” – Does this mean that each blog post is technically regulated in a different way? It is not a deal killer if so, because it sparked the following idea: Because FB and Twitter are big places, could you find a smaller community (that is not inherently feminist-oriented) that is discussing the same thing as mentioned in one or a few of the Bitch Media posts, and compare the discussions directly? Just a thought!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)

::Does ''anyone else'' see the awesome irony of a woman named Jane writing about Bitch magazine? Am I the only one on here who was a teenage girl in the '90s? I remember clear as day, reading [http://bitchmagazine.org/article/ten-things-hate-about-jane Bitch's criticisms of Jane] back in 1998. BTW [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] I hope you understand that as a very longtime fan of Bitch magazine I am in no way criticizing your project, I actually think it's '''such''' a cool topic. You & I would probably have been awesome friends as teenagers. p.s. This doesn't count as a comment on the prospectus!!! I hope. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:44, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Haha, thanks so much for sharing that Erin!! I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but when you see words and phrases like "fake, sanctimonious," "self-obsessed," "narcissism," "blithe unconcern with which they suggest spending huge amounts of money on items of debatable utility," and "overweening focus on the superficial, ersatz do-it-for-you tone, and fake individualism" in just a quick scan of the article, it's bound to be a fun read. Thanks! [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 08:53, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Erin Saucke-Lacelle
*Prospectus title: Effect of rules & regulations on political discussion
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/ErinSaucke-Lacelle-Assignment2.pdf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Erin, I agree with your hypothesis about alienation. For example the weak and poor citizens do not have access to the internet and will be left out of the discussion. Their needs are often under-represented or not represented at all. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:04, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:::Thank you for the feedback [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]! Your comment makes me wonder though- for this project, we are assigned to studying an online community. Wouldn't the nature of the assignment therefore assume that all students completing this assignment will be leaving out the interest and opinions of people who do not have access to the Internet? Also, I am curious what you mean when you refer to 'weak' citizens? Again, thanks so much for the feedback! [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::::"Weak" = "Not powerful", have no voice or influence in government discussions and policy-making. Some politicians even believe these people should not participate in voting. Typically viewed as a country's liability rather than an asset. In a country like the Philippines with a total population of 90 million, a great economic revolution can happen if the 40 million in poverty and unemployed are mobilized. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Erin - I think the comparison of two subreddits with different regulations is a solid method of studying the effect of regulation on political discussion. I also believe the two subreddits you have chosen make for a great comparison. The only reservation I have in your prospectus is the focus on word count of the regulations as indicative of the rigor of the moderation. For example, one subreddit may simply say "Discussion of Russia is forbidden" - which in five words hampers more conversation than either of the two sets of regulations do in actuality. I do not think the word count is a meaningful statistic. Apropos your question of whether those without internet access will be under-represented in our studies, I would say that because we are focusing on specific small communities to begin with, we are under-representing the reactions (to control) of everyone in the world who is not in that community. The vast majority of the world is not included. Our focus is on only those within the community itself that we can observe. Ultimately I believe your project is designed very well. Since I too am studying a subreddit for my project, I will be following your progress closely!
::[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:23, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:::Hi [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]]! Thank you very much for the feedback, very good point about the empirical data on the rules, hopefully I can expand when I have 2500 words to work with. BTW, I just wanted to comment- the question about people without Internet access was actually [[User:Ichua|Ichua]]'s question. My understanding of the assignment is to study ''only'' online communities for this assignment (and not offline humans, which excludes anyone who doesn't or can't access the Internets). My question that [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] commented on is whether ''"users are intimidated by the effort or research required to post, thus limiting participation to a narrow audience"''. Sidenote- '''Thank you''' very much for introducing us to the Twitch Plays Pokémon phenomenon in class. So freaking cool. My God do I ever love the Internet.-[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]]

:::: Thanks Erin! I think it is absolutely amazing as well, and I've never played Pokémon. If you would like to read my prospectus and help me think about potential research questions using their subreddit, I am all ears. [[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 11:34, 27 February 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Ian Chua
*Prospectus title: Resolving National Issues With Online Collaborative And Interactive Cognitive Mapping
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTU-E120_Assignment2_IanChua.pdf
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: I learned from Erin that a project of this nature has its limitations. Government leaders or concerned individuals need to go to Ground Zero and observe for themselves the problems of the poor and weak citizenry. And if democratic rule has failed to eliminate poverty, why not consider compassionate rule?

::@[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] you know, I might be wrong!!! Not sure yet, I guess, til we hear back from more students, or the prof/TAs (: [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:40, 25 February 2014 (EST)

: Hi Ian, great topic and I like the innovative approach you're taking. I agree that social media is an important medium for Governments to gauge public mood or opinion. In fact, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott recently spent $4 million to analyse social media and gauge the public mood on certain policies he introduced. From my understanding, you're looking to build something like a mind map to organise the social media feedback and also meta tag it? This would effectively allow content to be searched and categorised similar to a knowledge base. Just a couple of questions though....How will you apply the cognitive map? Do you have a specific social media medium and Government in mind? Looking forward to reading the final outcome! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)
----

*Name: P. Scott Lapinski
*Prospectus title: “Crowd Control”. Content and community controls which impact scholarly communication within the PubMed Commons scientific forum
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)
::''For Assignment 2-b, I would love to comment on this prospectus- I will begin now, but please don't take my comments as complete until deadline of Assm't 2-b.''
::Not sure if this will count for feedback for assignment 2-b, but I thought I might share. After reading about how exclusive PubMed Commons is, of course I really wanted to join. As an author of a PubMed article, I ''should'' theoretically have access, if I understand the rules correctly. However PubMed doesn't have my current email address on file (and I can't guess which former email they would have). I think this might be an ineffective means of control, as only 1 in 6 authors on my publication have submitted their email addresses when submitting the article- the rest of us just signed a waiver allowing publication. I sent a request to HelpDesk, and will let you know what they say... (: BTW, for what it's worth, I think you did a very good job at following assignment guidelines. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 13:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I was unaware of this community exits, and I think it will be a great place for graduate students and researchers to find which papers they should be reading. For example, if I need to utilize a method that is slightly outside of my field, this community will help identify the appropriate and esteemed papers. This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day). Because PubMed is already an exclusive database primarily for biomedical researchers, I am interested to what you observe. I am worried that because only pubmed users (or people using a University IP address) have access to pubmed articles, open access will play a minimal role in which articles spark more conversation. Unfortunately, people tend to converse about papers in high-impact journals like Nature and Science, and I would expect these articles to compete with the open access ones. Perhaps an observation of which articles receive complaints about not being open-access for the curious science lover who is no longer in academia may be an interesting perspective.. ([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 13:45, 2 March 2014 (EST))

::: "This may also serve as a better model for Peer Review (one day)" [[User:Margorm|Margorm]] I agree so strongly. If not this model, then one very similar to it [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 21:22, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: VACYBER
*Prospectus title: Regulatory steps for hacking tools in light of the tremendous potential for fiscal and data loss
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:VACYBER_Assignment2.docx
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 12:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)

::I can see where this topic would make an interesting focal point for a review article or commentary on the exploitation opportunities, (legal and criminal) that open source software packages like these permit. As an administrator of several IT systems myself, reading your prospectus has made me curious to learn more about NESSUS and Metasploit, and perhaps use them to test out weaknesses in my own servers.

::Let's continue along that thought...and say I will download and experiment with this software... I'm using this scenario "hypothetically" in hopes that it may help you focus more on the key question(s) you are hoping to answer, and to also consider "from where" you will be able to make some observations to address that question. In other words, where might you be able to follow some online community activity over the next few weeks, and observe some interactions between the users, developers, and IT administrators who work with these software packages?

::So, after just now learning of these open source packages, I want to download them on my Linux box and experiment. I want to see how others have installed, implemented, and customized the software to exploit a variety of possibilities. Is there an open community where I can lurk and maybe participate in a discussion to learn about various ways I can use this software to test out my servers for vulnerabilities and bugs? What kind of controls might I be subjected to within that community that may prevent me from discussing specifics about what known vulnerabilities have been discovered, and what security holes one can exploit? If I discover a major security flaw, can (or should) I document this within that online community? Are there normative, legal, and/or architectural controls that prevent or discourage divulging too much information within his community? I noticed a discussion forum at http://discussions.nessus.org/welcome, and https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit... would these be the communities you were considering?

::Anyway, hoping this helps out. I just wanted to raise these questions as a way to help you identify the specific online community where some observable activity will occur, and focus in on what controls you hope to be able to see playing-out during the rest of the semester. You may already have that in mind, but it wasn't in the prospectus, so I thought I'd raise the questions here. I think knowing the answer to these questions will help put the ideas into the context of the Final Project's objectives and should also help with the next task of building the outline in Assignment 3. [[User:Psl|Psl]] 14:25, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

*Name: Twood
*Prospectus Title: Online Independent Music Communities: The Mechanisms and Effects of Copyright Control
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Twood_Assignment2.rtf
[[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:03, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Somehow the uploaded RTF file had been converted to a CALC spreadsheet file, making some of the contents hard to read. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:08, 27 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Twood. I find your paper topic to be incredibly interesting and well-thought out. I wish I had constructive criticism to give you, but I find that you are on the right path. My only question at the moment: how do you plan on measuring the response of community members to the each sites' control mechanisms? [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:41, 28 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Twood, I find this to be a very cool topic and being a musician myself, makes it even more so. I have never ever been a fan of sampling music outright and then adding a new beat and some remixing to make it one's own, just not my style. I like the prospect of you examining a smaller or less commercialized community musically (as compared to You tube). Again, as own who owns small studio at home and records pretty solidly, it is always great to see musicians recording and producing their own stuff from scratch with small home studio setups. I hope you show an example of a community catching someone in the act of stealing another's music or idea and what the outcome of that interaction will be - because as musicians we always borrow, modify or improves someone else's cord progression or guitar lick to make it our own. So, it would be great to see if you could hint about that distinction - as I am sure it comes up a lot in communities like this. But, overall really nice topic to concentrate on.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 19:42, 2 March 2014 (EST)

----------
*Name: Cheikh Mbacke
*Prospectus Title: Re/Code: A Neutral Endorser of Disruptive Technology Companies
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cheikh_Mbacke_Assignment_2.txt
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:15, 25 February 2014 (EST)

------

*Name: Emmanuelsurillo
*Prospectus title: "emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc."
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:%22emmanuelsurillo_Assignment2.doc.%22.docx [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:41, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:You raise some great research questions to examine within these communities. You might want to narrow your focus more. Will you be talking about the legalities of “jail-breaking” and it’s effect on the Apple and Android market? Considering the topics we discussed in class, it might be interesting to develop your research to mention the view of major companies toward these forums and the rogue developers. Once an iphone is jail-broken, it losses its apple warranty coverage. This might be a topic you want to bring up with your research. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:36, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

Greetings Emmanuel,

You have selected a really “hot” topic. Mobile applications appear to be taking over actual web development these days. I’m in the process of creating a new site, for the general public, to locate assistance after they have been harmed by other entities. The developer of my site highly recommended that I create a mobile app at the same time. He is correct and the only reason I do not plan to follow his suggestion is directly related to cost.

I’m unclear of the real statistics, but Internet users seem to be using phones as their selected source of information more frequently than computers. Most people carry their phones (even to bed) but fewer seem to be in constant travel with their laptop.

I am not familiar with the sites you listed in your proposal since I am not a mobile application developer, but I am happy to learn there are forums to enhance applications through large communities.

It appears many of our classmates are attempting to use a compare/contrast approach, which seems logical, if we want to identify how resourceful one community is versus another. Your research will be extremely useful to many, and I would like to pass your results onto my developer after you have completed all the hard work (smile).

A few questions for you:

“I want to compare how useful and productive these web sites are to the users end for accomplishing these goals.”

1. How do you plan to compare and contrast the central 7-9 questions outlined in your proposal for the final project? In other words, will you be able to summarize the data from each research question in one succinct paragraph to meet the page requirements?
2. Do you think it would be easier to select 2-3 questions presented in your proposal to dig a little deeper or perhaps ask a few others from the class to join you on a team to cover all the questions presented?

I ask these questions, because I am struggling with these issues myself. I believe if I ask enough people in our community who are using a similar approach, I will (eventually) determine a model that may be useful for my own research.

Another suggestion: Could we potentially find a group of people in our research community (class) that are interested in using a similar approach, but still collectively analyze the communities we selected for personal purposes? In other words, I am certain most students have selected the entities of study for some reason, such as personal satisfaction or business achievement. However, Andy has made it clear that he would entertain teams multiple times. In fact, the option has been posted on every page of our instructions for the main project. In fact, the option has been posted so many times that I am beginning to think he may be giving us a subtle hint or clue: “This assignment will be more effective if you work collectively together and you may gain more valuable research by teaming”. I don’t read minds, but…

Example:

I am attempting to look at the effectiveness of two sites created to allegedly help people who have been taken advantage of by either an entity or a person. Section 203 under the Communication Decency Act assists people in their ability to say whatever they think, regardless if correct.

You are comparing two mobile application sites to analyze how useful and productive the sites are for the users to include accuracy and validity.

Marissa is researching the validity of airbnb.com, and looking at the controls put in place by the website to protect people.

I still have many proposals to read today, but it does appear that many of us are running in a few general hypothetical areas of question:

Which site is more effective due to the controls implemented by the site itself? (Compare/Contrast)

Can the data on these sites be considered valid? Is so, why or why not?

Could we potentially work together on a research methodology for all three sites to compare and contrast if the model is effective in and of itself while measuring the data across the board for multiple communications? In summary, we could compare and contrast the model that we collectively created against the sites we personally selected.

My biggest concern with many of our proposals is that they are too broad and we will not find the depth. Most of our topics could be potential dissertations; unfortunately we are lacking 5 years of research time (smile). I plan to look for commonality in proposals submitted-perhaps we can all make this better together. Could we potentially try to use our class community to research the depth of the Internet communities.?

Just thoughts.

Cheers!
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 17:07, 3 March 2014 (EST)
----

*[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:42, 25 February 2014 (EST)
*Architectural choices for a better Q&A community (StackOverflow)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/LSTUE-120Assignment2.pdf

----

*Name: Art.Mescon
*Title: Do Etsy’s regulations aim to help buyers and/or sellers or are they primarily protective of the company itself, leaving third parties on their own to seek out reputable transaction partners?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Art.Mescon_Assignment2.docx

::You raise some great ideas in your prospectus that would make for an interesting research paper around Etsy. However, I wonder if it might be best to focus more on the controls for which you can already observe playing out within the Etsy community's online activities? In other words, the community norms and architecture controls within Etsy itself (user-"self-regulation" and Etsy's-"private-regulation") might be the most reliable "observable data" that you will be able to anticipate over the next few weeks. The government level controls (public-regulation) you suggest may require moving outside this community, and I am not sure that a useful discussion (with observational data) will be possible within the page limit, nor would it be crucial to answering your research question.

::I like the research question very much, and I think it couches the challenges you hope to observe within the methodology you propose. Also, I anticipate that the community interactions over the next couple of months should provide you with enough observational data to answer your question. One more tip on the question... What would you think about starting the question with "How" rather than "Do"...? Play around with the phrase of your question, and see how it feels. My thinking is that you will allow yourself some flexibility in what you will truly have to report on when it comes time to write up the results. The answer to a "Do" question requires one to choose a yes or no and your findings will likely challenge any "absolute" judgment call... So don't let yourself get cornered into having to make that choice (at least not at this early stage). By starting the question with "How do Etsy’s regulations...", will allow you to have more flexibility to report on what the observations will show, and your can balance your discussion section on some good and not-so-good controls that play out over the next few weeks.

::Last point. In your sentence "I intend to identify how Etsy controls, or fails to control content in a manner that is advantageous to their users.", I wasn't sure if by "users" you meant the buyers, sellers, or both. My mind is interpreting that "user" is the buyer in this sentence’s context, and the word "content" is used to define both the items and community sellers that are being controlled. True? That distinction may be important to clarify as the full report gets written, because the Etsy controls and observations being gathered will (I suspect) impact buyers vs sellers vs content each a little differently. On a similar note... To cut down on the need to follow every buyer, seller and thing in "Top Searches" for this community, do you think it would be helpful to focus on just one type of craft? I don't know enough about Etsy specifically to determine if that would work for this project, but it might be another way to find a sub-group/sub-community limit, and still provide you with enough observational data to draw some conclusions.

::Hoping these comments are helpful! [[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:22, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

Title: YouTube Comment Filtering and Other Cyberbullying Initiatives

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

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 16:07, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Might be interesting to determine whether and how Youtube encourages positive comments and discourage negative or hate comments. Ultimately, it would be ideal if the character of misbehaving individuals could be improved. Some ideas might be the use of "Like" and "Dislike" votes on these comments and/or the award/deduction of "attitude points". The individuals posting hate and aggressive comments could be prohibited from further postings if the attitude point reaches a certain limit. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:02, 27 February 2014 (EST)

::I really like the focal point you will be observing, and you are quite right in pointing out that this "negativity" is becoming an unfortunate reality for many "open comment" sections within these online spaces. Even what can begin as constructive dialog and healthy debate, can quickly degenerate into blather, flames, and hate words when anonymity can be so effectively used as a shield. Interestingly, we can't always point our finger at just one "troll" injecting some deliberate provocation...because sometimes the breakdown occurs with the 3 or 4 community members who (hither to) we're exchanging words in a perfectly eloquent & respectful manner. But the hate, racism, and bullying that poison the dialog on these comment-boards are on a much more disturbing level, and one that certainly will make for an interesting study.

::So, The broad question that I am hearing in your prospectus is "What are the most important controls that an online service provider can successfully implement to intercept and discourage cyberbullying, hate-speech, and irrelevant negativity? The sub-question then would be "How effective and/or constraining are those controls on the community's ability to engage with each other in a meaningful unbiased dialog about the content? (YouTube in this example)?

::Have you given some thought to the subject matter that you will focus on, as a way to observe how these comments progress? It may be helpful to put your lens onto a consistent subject to observe the cycle of communication. From there you should be able to witness what prompts the conversation to begin in the first place; when do counter-points get introduced, how long is constructive dialog able to bridge back and fourth, what is the "poison-pill" that kills the conversation, and when do the controls kick-in?. (Observing where the controls kick in would obviously be the essential part to report on, not so much each of those elements of the cycle of communication I itemized there.)

::I’d be curious to also know if the observation shows that the cycle of communication is more (or less) positive throughout based on the type of subject that initiates the conversation? News stories on "hot button" topics or baseball contrasted with (say) a page dealing with baking fudge probably have different trajectories of "success" in remaining positive. (I am thinking about the inherent behavior of the potential community members themselves… one lends itself to polarized opinions with predictable “zealots” appearing in either camp, while the other community may be more welcoming of differing opinions and tastes). SO for example, thinking of an individual wearing that New York Yankees hat in Fenway Park on game day....vs... a group of bakers talking about chocolate vs. peanut butter fudge recipes…The former is likely to risk some taunting, a black eye, a broken tooth, and perhaps a small riot... while those in the latter group, might, at worst, receive only a cavity. Anyway, my point is that it might be interesting compare a couple of focused topics of conversation as a way of discovering a smaller sub-community that builds around a YouTube comment-board (With one engaging in a "Hot button" topic.... While the other group is discussing something seemingly non-polarizing.)[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:00, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----
*Ben Harmatz
*Government Entities: Internet Surveillance and Censorship
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Harvard_NSA_1_draft_copy.doc
[[User:Benh|Benh]] 16:49, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:: Hi Ben. While I think your prospectus brings up the interesting and very pertinent topic of government control, surveillance, and censorship, I think that it is simply far too broad of a topic. For the assignment, we are supposed to monitor the activities of users on a particular site or group of sites, but looking at the internet as a whole is far too much for an 8-10 page paper! Perhaps consider government control, surveillance, and censorship while observing a particular website that has been named as a victim (by the media) of NSA's surveillance and dig deeper there. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 13:02, 28 February 2014 (EST)

------
*Patricia Byrnes
*Title: Are moderators effective for policing and protecting a site from illegal use?
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Patricia_Byrnes_Assig._Two.doc
[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 16:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Patricia, First off, love your idea, moderating internet speech, as well as your methodology: if what you want to measure is moderating behavior, norms, and free speech concerns, the “Politics & Leaders” forum is a fantastic place to do so since It appears that discussions there can turn from heated to vituperative in the blink of an eye! With respect to your research question, by specifying “effective,” I assume that you will quantify instances of behavior that violate the established rules of the site. This method is good since you give yourself a verifiable and quantifiable measure. You can then use Lessig’s and other scholars work to explain these data. Now, you say that you wish to "research the rules and regulations of the site,” which looks like it might be an insurmountable task. I visited the site’s “Super Editor handbook” and I see that it is quite extensive. Perhaps you might want to focus specifically on one type of violation, such as "3.4.1 Discouraged Ranking Themes - Personal Experience / Personal Preference Rankings” ? [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 23:00, 1 March 2014 (EST)

-------

*Name or pseudonym: Vance.Puchalski
*Regulators and the Spread of (Mis)Information
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Puchalski-Assignment2.docx
[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 17:17, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:As an extension student and a reader of both sites, I agree that extension student is often more accurate especially due to the required affiliation. You should consider when collecting your data that often information is not so black and white. A lot of people on these treads seek opinion, which is more of a personal thought rather than right or wrong. A lot on forums is opinion based, not fact based and so I think you should prepare for your data to be filled with a lot of gray areas, which you might already be expecting. The correlation between accuracy and monitoring is certainty an interesting topic. Anyway, great research topic and I’m interested to see your findings. Good luck! [[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 21:20, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
*A. Tom Anteus
*Cryptocurrency Uses in Conflict Zones Around the World
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Cryptocurrency_Uses_in_Conflict_Zones_Around_the_World.pdf
[[User:A. Tom Anteus|A. Tom Anteus]] 17:26, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Tom, intriguing topic! I'm a keen follower of the Bitcoin revolution myself so have been naturally drawn to your prospectus and Daniel's as well. However I would say its quite difficult to follow your proposal. I'm not quite sure how you intend to analyse and measure the use of cryptocurrency in conflict zones. Which conflict areas will you be targeting? Do you intend to follow forums or analyse chatter on various websites. If so, which ones? [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:36, 2 March 2014 (EST)

-----

*Julie Dubela
*Mapping Social Media Debate on the OHCHR Report on North Korea
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Julie_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julie|Julie]] 18:37, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Hi Julie, great prospectus. I find the whole North Korea situation appalling from a global response perspective. A lot of the articles, commentary and reactions from people around the world have been effectively muzzled. Your approach to analyse public reaction through social media is methodical and well thought through. Your plan to use specific tools to collect information from twitter hash tags, Google trends etc and follow up by analysing them to find common themes and trends is great. I look forward to reading the final report! [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 07:52, 2 March 2014 (EST)
----
*Andrew Grant
*Quantified Self and Qualified Liability: Strava and Lessig's Four Forces
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Andrew_Grant_Assigmnment_Two_02252014.docx
[[User:AndrewGrant|Andrew Grant]]

::Andrew, your prospectus sounds fantastic. Lots of interesting questions being asked in light of Lessig's Four Forces and the Quantified Self movement. I think that you many be asking too many questions for an 8-10 page paper, if you are to go into sufficient depth for each one. Do you think that it's realistic to answer the five research questions in so short of a paper? Other than that, I think you are off to a great start and I am interested in hearing more about it. [[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 11:49, 28 February 2014 (EST)

----

In general, it might be helpful to state why your project is important and how the outcome of the research might help regulate/control or improve human behavior on the internet. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:58, 27 February 2014 (EST)

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-25T20:14:31Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 25'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]]. 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.

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

; Digital applications and new challenges

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

; Copyright solutions

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko Creative Commons, A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce: Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy] (Executive summary only)

* [http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf Maria Pallante, The Next Great Copyright Act] (skim Section II (323-339) only)

:* Maria Pallante is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights Register of Copyrights] for the United States.

== Recommended Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQVBmKsVhI Lewis Hyde, Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership] (video, watch from 2:12 to 24:37)

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

----

This is related to an earlier class, but a great article on Wikipedia's bots has just been published on The Verge... [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kills-trolls-how-wikipedia-robots-snuff-out-vandalism This machine kills trolls: How Wikipedia’s robots and cyborgs snuff out vandalism] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:53, 19 February 2014 (EST)

:What an interesting article! It seems rather shocking to me that users would protest the implementation of bots to patrol vandalism on Wikipedia. One comment cited in the article is that "Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions". This seems like an argument made on principle rather than for practicality's sake. Surely we benefit from these anti-vandalism bots, as Wikipedia would be worthless if people were allowed to make whatever edits they pleased, due to the proliferation of internet trolls. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:01, 24 February 2014 (EST)

----

Regarding Copyright laws, it seems that there are many ambiguities and potential loopholes inherent in the system. How is it acceptable for musicians to freely perform "covers" of popular songs-- oftentimes to the extent that their entire act is merely covers, such as at weddings, corporate events, restaurants, etc.-- yet plays cannot be performed live without the consent of the author/copyright holder? It is not altogether uncommon in these situations for an artist to be paid to perform someone else's work, for the purpose of entertainment. What is the difference, then, between these situations? Based on Grimmelmann's article "Why Johnny can't stream", it appears that there are is an endless string of individuals and companies finding new ways to circumvent the laws, so that new laws must be implemented. Where does this stop? Is this due to rebellion against unfair copyright restrictions, companies merely trying to exploit artists and capitalize on their work, or individuals trying to be greedy or subversive?

By the way, has anyone heard about Aereo's progress, and/or where it currently stands in the legal system? I looked it up online and it seems to be taking on members who want to pre-register for the service, though the article was written in August of 2012, so you would think it would be out by now.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)

: I was also curious about where the Aereo case(s) were currently... and happened upon this update published last week (also in arstechnica) "Aereo loses copyright fight, gets banned in 6 states" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/ and as Comcast/NBC "cuts a deal with Netflix"...as well as potentially merging with Time-Warner, just how "lovely" is that? http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/24/does-netflixcomcast-deal-remove-obstacle-to-twc-merger/ [[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:35, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:Great comments! As to "covers" of popular songs, those are not usually free uses, but instead uses that are licensed in ways that most of us don't normally see. As to covers of live music, those are usually handled by blanket licenses from performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) through either the venue or the artist. For recorded covers, there is actually a statutory license in the law which allows the covering band to do this without permission, provided they pay a particular fee per copy sold. (These days most of that is administered through a corporation called the Harry Fox Agency.) And as for Aereo, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/ the Supreme Court has agreed to hear] the appeal from the Second Circuit's case (one of many, as Psl points out), which will in all likelihood set the standard for Aereo's legality nationwide. So we will see! [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:48, 24 February 2014 (EST)

----

COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS

Based on the readings, how is it possible for new math textbooks for elementary and high school to claim copyrights when the content has not changed for decades? Perhaps examples and illustrations and format of presentation used across different textbooks may differ, but the content and concepts taught are essentially the same.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 18:19, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:This question drives right to the heart of what is protected vs. unprotected under copyright. We're going to tackle that in some depth tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA

Because of NPOV, all content in Wikipedia need to be copied....and referenced. If one copies everything or extensively from a single source, would it still be legal? And if one copies from many sources, it is called a work of research? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:While the question of "is that research" is a complicated one, the particular copyright licenses offered over Wikipedia content are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights here]. It's a bit complicated and depends on the particular media in question, but most adhere to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Creative Commons CC-BY-SA] license for content, which allows use with attribution back to Wikipedia, provided what you use it for is also licensed under this same open term. We'll talk more about this tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:I almost forgot what i wanted to say about Creative Commons. As online content developer, sometimes we do indeed want certain content to be copied freely for marketing purposes or we felt it should be offered free to certain people, but people dare not distribute such content for us because of copyright infringement. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:02, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----
The article, There is no Magic Bullet, was an interesting read. He talks about the idea of combatting piracy as often being boiled down to: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier" which is problematic. The availability of technology is making piracy a lot easier these days. While, legal options are usually a long and expensive option in most cases. This leaves us at a problem. The emergence of easy and paid websites, like amazon and netflix, worked as a legal alternative instead of piracy but it has not been successful in a world-wide scale so far. I think as long as there is a easy, free alternative, it will often be the first choice for most people, even it is illegal. It doesn't always have to be bad, especially as it relates to creative content like music. Free sharing is often a great opportunity for growth and marketing.
I'm interested to see how copyright laws and creative content will develop with the advancement of the internet. I wonder if making piracy harder is a viable option at this point without infringing on personal content.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:It's a great question, and one that we're still trying to explore and understand. The anecdotal evidence we have suggests that countries that offer legal alternatives to piracy have experienced a drop in BitTorrent traffic since those have been made available, but it's near impossible to draw further conclusions off of that single point of data. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

-----
Reading the Grimmelmann "Why Johnny Can't Stream" article I'm reminded of how the music industry fought so hard against services like Napster, while simultaneously it was the emergence of technology like iTunes--and the consequent unbundling of music tracks from albums--that spelled the end of their industry as they knew it. Similarly, "broadcast" and the gatekeeper model of media distribution is at an end. While the broadcasters fight services like Aero, the whole idea of DVR (whether in your living room, or in the cloud) is not going to be relevnt in the future: services like Netflix's original content (e.g., House of Cards) and HBO Go, where content will be made available by the content owner itself, disintermediating the cable networks, will be the norm. In this environment, we won't need a DVR and cable companies won't be relevant. It seems to me that part of the strategy with services like Netflix original content or HBO Go is twofold: to eliminate their dependence on distribution networks, while also rendering DVRs (and their consequent copyright issues) obsolete. After all, I'd be buying my content by-the-drink from the creator rather than from a distribution network where I have a legitimate reason to copy it and watch at different types or with commercials removed.

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:58, 24 February 2014 (EST)
----
A separate question: why did the framers consider copyrights/patents important enough to mention in the Constitution? Why not just leave it to Congress to worry about as part of regulating interstate commerce? As Lessig noted in his video, intellectual property law was a very minor concern for anyone prior to the 20th century. The Internet Policy Task Force doc claims that "the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression” but that's stated as an assertion (quoting the Supreme Court) without any explanation. I'm interested in understanding the historical context and what the framers were concerned about. Thoughts?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:00, 24 February 2014 (EST)

:We'll be talking about that in class today, but the Lewis Hyde lecture in the recommended reading (and his book, ''Common As Air'' tackle that at considerable length). [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING:

Simply replicating textbooks into digital format for online accessibility is not good enough for online learning.
Otherwise, all students should be getting A's for math and science just from reading textbooks. When my staff develops online resources for math, a lot of attention goes into how to engage the student online through interactivity, choreography, and animation. We also bear in mind how these resources might be used in the classroom. We incorporate multiple modalities of teaching, learning and self-assessments. And the skills required for creating an online learning resource are very different from just producing a textbook. We need the teacher or content expert to be able to think like a script-writer, a movie producer, a choreographer, a programmer and an animator, all rolled into one.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 02:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT

It is very common to see several websites replicating the same information word-for-word. This makes internet searches very inefficient and frustrates internet users trying to do research on the web. Search robots should be used to warn website owners to remove such content.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

HOW ONE COUNTRY CIRCUMVENTS THE COPYRIGHT PROBLEM IN DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE POOR

The copyright protects the earnings of the author and publisher and ensures that each copy of the book contributes a return to their investment. But the poor has no money. How can a country distribute knowledge to the poor? The Indian Ministry of Education seems to have authored their own content and made these academic content available online for free.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Smartphones have also helped citizens in being able to access the internet without a broadband home internet connection. Estimates claim that 56% of Americans now have smartphones and this has helped to significantly bridge the gap domestically.

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/26/for-some-without-home-broadband-smartphones-bridge-the-gap/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:25, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS

This is a cool software which I started to use a decade ago: http://www.smartsound.com
You can specify the duration of the desired type of music and it will auto-generate the royalty-free soundtrack.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:22, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

New versions of software such as PhotoShop, Maya, and CrazyTalk, are now more powerful, user friendly and cost much less than a decade ago which enables the user to quickly create high quality original images, textures, scenes, and animations. This gives artists more incentives to exercise their own creativity and avoid copying from other sources.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Everyday millions of videos are uploaded to the servers of YouTube and responsible for assessing whether or not they are in accordance with the rules of copyright is the ContentID. The tool was created by Google to analyze the productions in search of pieces of audiovisual works protected by copyright. The record labels and movie studios send copies of their original works and the system compares numerous excerpts with what is being shared on the network to find illegal copies on site. When the system finds a similarity between the video posted by a user with videos available in a database registered in the ContentID , the rights holders are notified and must decide what will be done. Some options are: block the video, leave it mute or unavailable; monetize by displaying ads and inserting the video link to the original owner of the content , or even track it views with the statistics being computed only on who Analytics own the copyright on the work. http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_copyright gisellebatista

::Great point, Giselle! We're going to talk about the "private ordering" around copyright (and the issues that come up there) with Adam Holland from Chilling Effects next week. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:53, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Outside of doubling down on the penalties for copyright infringement, we seem to gather very little cooperation for addressing the challenges of digital copyright. Any solution proposed with direct enforcement appears to cut corners with due process. Let's have the ISP's monitor and throttle back activity. However, ISPs lack the skill set and capability to interpret copyright law and adjudicate penalties. Increased inspection and examination of content brings about a level of surveillance that most users are uncomfortable with in their digital travels.
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:12, 25 February 2014 (EST)

:Some of these hard questions between enforcement and other values will be tackled next week when we discuss the DMCA, SOPA, Six Strikes, and some of the other enforcement ideas floated over the past decade or so. As I've said a few times in this class so far, there are no easy answers here, but I hope we can explore the values at stake. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

----

Copyright infringement in many countries is still not resolved. As a result of infringement the music, films, videos, books and other information can be freely downloaded by users without the appropriate permission of copyright owners. A lot of people event don't know the difference between legal and illegal dissemination of information. This situation also impacts government (for example, tax issues) From my point of view, the reason is that the current legislation in many coutnrties is not enough for internet as it doesn't incorporate the characteristics of Internet. The new methods of protection of copyright should be established with close cooperation of internet providers (for example, blocking th user from access to certain website for several days in cases of infringement of copyrights or financial means as penalties). Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:57, 25 February 2014 (EST))

----

It seems as though copyright as a whole is (and must) follow down the same path as online streaming did -- adapt or being adapted by the circumstances. Free online streaming is now legitimatized by the Crackles, etc. of the world. The industry adapted. Of course, that industry issue was based in copyright issues. But it now looks like other forms of copyright issues may have to follow down the same road. I'm thinking in particular of indie artist sampling and uploading material illegally (the control of this was main focus of my prospectus.) [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:14, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-25T19:03:45Z

Twood: /* Comments */

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-18T20:25:32Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 18'''

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, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?

In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings ==

; Private and public control of speech online

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

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

* [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]

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

; Speech laws and liabilities in the United States

* [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]

; Cross-border concerns

* [http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/susan-benesch-on-dangerous-speech-2/ Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech] (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)

* [http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24189/twitter-hands-over-data-unbonjuif-authors-french-authorities Jessica McKenzie, Obeying French Courts, Twitter Hands Over Identities of Users Who Employed Anti-Semitic Hashtag (TechPresident)]

* [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/york-libya-youtube/index.html Jillian York, Should Google Censor an Anti-Islam Video?]

== Optional Readings ==

* [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://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey & Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks" (Ars Technica)]

* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+aclu&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Evolving_Landscape_of_Internet_Control_3.pdf Hal Roberts et al., The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accessdenied-chapter-5.pdf Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet (from ''Access Denied'')]

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/adapting-us-policy-in-a-changing-international-system/245307/ Anne-Marie Slaughter, Adapting U.S. Policy in a Changing International System]

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

==Links from Class Discussion==

</onlyinclude>

==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>

----

Zuckerman’s article brings interesting light to censorship in regards to freedom of speech and who’s value should take precedence.
As discussed in the article, Bluehost’s CEO, Matt Heaton was quick to back the companies financial well-being by adding an entirely new section (13) to an already executed contract and cease service of Burrell’s sites to "comply" with the U.S. Treasury.

Heaton’s decision was most likely based from a financial perspective, and was unwilling to take a chance due to the slight profit margins of hosting. So, to safeguard profits, the company added section 13 to a pre-existing contract. In this case, Bluehost value took precedence (Not the U.S. Treasury or the sites Burrell happened to be hosting through Bluehost).

Question: Does Burrell have the ability to pursue legal action against Bluehost for adding a clause to her contract after the original agreement was executed?

--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:39, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw

For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online.
But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

This might be a little off-topic, so I apologize in advance if it's "inappropriate", but I was wondering if anyone has read ''The Circle'' by Dave Eggers? These readings-- and my exchange with Ichua on last week's discussion board-- have really made me consider the thoughts posed in that book. Basically, the book is about a company (a la Facebook) which seeks to "complete the circle" of internet usage and identity. It functions as a sort of government in and of itself, as well as a full-fledged community/world. Everything is consolidated on their system, so that people have basically no anonymity online as we do now; the internet is no longer removed from reality, but is instead a virtual reality in the most literal sense. All of their information is stored within the system, including their medical records, family history, purchase history, job details and tasks, and essentially all communication is conducted through the site. There is also a security camera system which is set up and controlled by the users, but has become so prolific that essentially every area of the globe is under surveillance. While the situation posed in the novel is drastic and even scary, there are a lot of positives to certain aspects. I think the biggest concern is not necessarily the loss of privacy, but the question of who controls (or should control) such a system. Certainly controls should exist, but surely corporations should not have that much power or intimate knowledge and it seems that even a government would not suffice for such a job. Should there be another authority? If so, what sort of entity would be qualified to do such a job? I'd love to hear other peoples' perspectives, whether you've read it or not.[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:55, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

*'''NOTE 1''' While reading this week's articles, I took a break from homework to scroll down my Facebook newsfeed. I came across a post by a friend in Quebec, about a website that satirizes Snapchat. When I clicked the link, it gave me an error message. I messaged my friend, she was able to open the link with no problem from Quebec. From the comments on her post, it seems as though the only questionable content were some dirty pictures on the site, but nothing I understand to be limited in the USA. That was a bit weird/scary...
*'''NOTE 2''' Now that I am done reading this week's articles, I am more nervous to post my honest response to some of the articles than I used to be!
*'''QUESTION''' Does anyone know the Wiki Markdown version of <code>target="_blank"</code>? I'd be happy to add the markup to the class readings if anyone knows what the code is (I've tried Googling it... no luck...)
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:27, 17 February 2014 (EST)

: It is generally considered bad practice in web development to use target="_blank" outside of very specific, exceptional cases. The reason is simple: If the link has no target attribute, the behaviour is defined by user's settings and by user's action as they can either click the link or right click and open in another tab/window/etc., some browsers offering other options such us click&drag, middle click, etc. If the link has a target="_blank" attribute, on the other hand, the user is forced to open the link in a separate tab/window - his actions are thus limited by the developer, for no good reason (even if the developer might think he has a good reason, it usually isn't). --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)

::Thank you for the note Seifip!!! Makes sense, maybe i can play around with Chrome settings & see if I can set it so outside links always open in new tab... Not that I'm too lazy to press the cmd/ctrl key for each link... (well I guess a bit) but my keyboards are all in different languages which confuses the crap out of my typing muscle memory, so I love it when browsers already know which links I want in a new tab (:

::: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/linkclump/lfpjkncokllnfokkgpkobnkbkmelfefj?hl=en Linkclump] extension is your friend :) --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 07:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

As I was considering the intersections of this week’s readings, several articles reminded me of a case that occurred back in 2000, although not within the realm of the Internet or something like the Flickr or Picasa most of us are very familiar with today, the parallels and concerns will seem obvious.

When we think about the amount of daily photographic content that now goes up on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc. and consider the roles of these “Deciders” (as defined in one of the reading), the case as it occurred for an Oberlin, Ohio family back in 2000, seems like it could play out over and over again if individual states received the powers of prosecution to the extent that the State Attorneys General are requesting in their letter to congress on July 23, 2013.

Some may remember the case I’m referring to, in an overly distilled summary, it involved an amateur photographer who was chronicling her daughter’s life in still photography. Some photographs included her (then 8yr old) daughter bathing. When the photos were developed by the local film-processing lab, a clerk reported this to the police as an incident of “child pornography”. The local police agreed, and the mother was arrested and the case garnered national attention at the time with the ACLU coming to the defense of the mother.
http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_spring_00/atissue.html
[Later the subject of an entire book looking more closely at the issues]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/questions-of-photographic-propriety-in-framing-innocence/

The letter by the 49 Attorneys General certainly strikes at a horror that anyone with a human heart will become equally enraged towards - the tragedy of child abuse, sex trafficking, and exploitation. While it seems odd that the word “The State” is omitted from the current language of the CDA, I wonder if by including “The State” in CDA language, we will end up introduce a sliding scale of laws that become defined by “the standards of any small community” enforcing crimes that THEY define a “Obscenity” and/or “child pornography”.

What is viewed as unprotected speech and deemed as “obscenity” (or “child pornography”) in Lorain County Ohio, may not result in the same definition in (say) San Francisco. With the addition of “The State” in the CDA, could the State of Ohio prosecute a photographer in San Francisco for posting an “obscene” picture to a Flickr account which is accessible to users in Ohio? If the definition of “obscenity” is based on the Miller’s test (below), then What are the “community standards” that define obscenity in a case where one state wishes to prosecute someone in another “community”??

The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[[User:Psl|Psl]] 17:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for contributing! Just to clarify, the constitutional definition of actionable obscenity under ''Miller'' has the geographic element to it, which tailors the more general [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71 criminal statute], but in the realm of child pornography neither the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 criminal statute] nor the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber First Amendment doctrine] base liability on community standards. So while obscenity can very state to state, child pornography does not. (And both are illegal at the federal level.) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 18:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have a greater appreciation for the issues involved in online free speech after this week's article. I somewhat disagree with Zuckerman's conclusion that private limitations to speech in private spaces is "Dangerous for a public society," in that I believe that private companies need to be able to define what is or isn't acceptable communication within their own environments--we're guests in these areas, and it's up to companies owning the spaces to decide what sort of environment their guests are going to experience. On the other hand, I don't think it can be the government that defines what's acceptable--it needs to be up to the individual owners of these spaces. I'm concerned about any encroachment on an individual or private enterprise's ability to decide what rules are appropriate for itself. While I find the content of, say, a site like Stormfront (a white separatist website) to be totally repugnant, I would defend their right to publish what they do--if anything, it simply exposes their nonsense to public scrutiny and criticism.

I am sympathetic to Benesch's thinking about "dangerous speech," and in particular it does make sense that the context (speaker, political environment, proximity to sensitive events, lack of competition/criticism) can make hate speech turn into something more insidious. Nevertheless, I'm unable to think of a good solution that doesn't actually make things worse. She claims to defend freedom of expression yet is able to make a distinction between expression and freedom of the press (dissemination). I find myself unable to disentangle the two. When one considers the international aspects, and the potential for international lawsuits (such as the French cases we've discussed) it seems like it would be unusually hard to apply her test to speech and protect the right of companies in places such as the United States to publish things that someone might claim to be "dangerous" elsewhere. For example, would the Chinese government find it to be "dangerous" if the customers of Twitter posted content about how there should be an end to single-party rule? Where do we draw the line? It's clear that not only are there the interests of certain governments at stake (and their authoritarian approaches to speech) but also the simple fact that some countries (such as the Rwanda example) may not have the institutions or cultural heritage to handle US-style free speech; yet it is it fair to force US companies to account for all of these cross-border and cross-cultural differences?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:08, 17 February 2014 (EST)

----

I also found myself somewhat sympathetic to Bensech's concern about dangerous speech. However, it is unfair and implausible to make US companies responsible for such cross-border/cultural differences. It is bad for business and generally not a policy I would deem logical. The way I see it, should a company be held liable for slander that someone says while in their establishment or be punished for someone who spray paints a hate message on the company's door? Although businesses can take precautions to try to prevent such occurrences, to do so over the internet is a much more painstaking task. Furthermore, I think the bounds of what constitutes "hate speech" is being stretched to some degree. Constitutionally and as many Supreme court cases have favored, freedom of speech is protected so long as it does not "incite violent action". For example, to instruct people to harm someone of a certain race would be considered unlawful. In my mind, that is where the line must be drawn.

Though, as others have mentioned, internet bullying is becoming more widespread and has resulted in teen suicides and possibly contributed to the uptick in school shootings as some have theorized. Still, to what degree should we be prosecuting internet hacklers for this behavior? As Professor mentioned in class, once an incident occurs Congress tends to look for an immediate remedy via legislation when it may not necessarily be the answer. Of course I find it horrible and morally repugnant that someone would bully an innocent person online but does this mean that every bit of our speech should now be scrutinized and if we, for example, call someone fat online we should be given a misdemeanor? If our society deems legal recourse for online bullying, it will become quite convoluted in staking out the levels and appropriate punishments for each offense. Should a few "bad apples" online ruin or impede the benefits of free internet speech for the masses of good people in society who thrive off of our shared knowledge? Should McDonald's cheeseburgers be illegal to protect those who struggle from obesity? No matter how you frame it, more restrictions will eventually equate to more inhibition for companies and citizens alike. Such inhibition, I argue, thwarts a society's economic and intellectual growth.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:34, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I'm really glad you brought up the issue of bullying! This is an area where the Berkman Center's Youth and Media Lab have been doing [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era some great research] around framing, understanding, and assessing efficacy of solutions to bullying. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I agree with your points, AmyAnn, about the difficulty of dealing with bullying and regulating harassment online without stifling speech. The reading I've done on this issue, which has been more about harassment of women and not children, highlights the need for enforcement of what laws we do have. It's not that we need more laws, it's that we need the existing ones to be understood in the context of the Internet and to be enforced by the authorities. Amanda Hess wrote a really wonderful piece about her experience with this that I think I mentioned during one of the first weeks of class, which is long but well worth the read. [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.Us2TKsXlSF4.twitter] Lindy West wrote a follow up for Jezebel [http://jezebel.com/we-must-not-shut-up-about-how-women-are-treated-on-the-1496622407], which gives a quick overview and her own commentary. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:43, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing these sources! It is refreshing to see how more people are getting involved in spreading the message about cyber-bullying and I believe communication and public awareness initiatives are crucial in combating these issues, particularly in targeting the most vulnerable and dominant population on the web (the youth). The modern parent has more to consider in raising children with regular access to the cyber world both from the perspective of the victim and in preventative measures. A recent pew survey noted that 90% of teens had witnessed cyber-bullying yet did nothing about it. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone took a stand against cyber-bullying. Then again, I suppose the children did not know what to do or who to report their observations to; one might think to inform the student's parents but perhaps the teen did not know the parents? What action could this 90% of teens have taken? Call the police and on what grounds? At first blush, 90% of teens not reporting bullying seems like an awful statistic, but when considering the lack of direction or guidance in knowing (as a society) how to deal with these matters legally, it all trickles down and muddles the situation to the point where a concerned citizen may not be able to effectively help his fellow cyber-victim. In any event, without communication, these teens may not even recognize cyber-bullying to begin with and may become "desensitized" to a point where it may not even cross their mind. Communication is critical for our community to even be aware of what goes on in cyberspace, but as Jkelly mentions, all of the communication and education still cannot trump the lack of enforcement or clear legal path on dealing with these issues.

Has anyone seen the documentary "Submit"? It was created by parents of internet-bullying victims and the production discusses just how dangerous the bully's "arsenal" online has become when considering how one can, at worst case scenario, completely destroy someone's social standing, career, and identity. The "arsenal" they say is dangerous because it is both "vast" and "at a distant" offering a bully the prime environment in which to operate.

Here is the link for the documentary for those interested:
http://www.submitthedocumentary.com/

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:08, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

While I find Susan Benesch's pursuit of a more nuanced definition of free speech quite commendable, I find that her definition of dangerous speech is prone to subjective assessment and can lead to excessive censorship. Some of the factors, such as the charisma of the speaker, are difficult to assess and are shared between speakers for bad and good causes. Other factors, such as historical context, are equally less than ideal as history is not a constant, a fact, but rather something defined by the state and current generation based on its limited knowledge of the past and current view of the events. The way we see and interpret history changes virtually every decade, and it would be nice if the view of what constitutes dangerous speech was not tied to such an uncertain factor. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 08:11, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points, [[User:Seifip|Seifip]], and I suspect Susan would agree with you that there is still a gap between what factors should and shouldn't matter, and how that translates to policies, procedures, and rules for monitoring against dangerous speech. The tie between the substantive and procedural issues around freedom of expression is a fascinating place to explore at some depth. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

I found the reading this week really interesting as I am from the country that pioneered Internet censorship, China. To be exact, I am from Hong Kong, one of the Special Administrative Regions of China. For those who are not familiar with the history of Hong Kong, it used to be a colony of Britain and China resumed sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong is under the principle of “One County, Two Systems”, which means that it has a different political, legal and economical system from China and will be maintained that way for at least 50 years.

Facebook, Twitter, New York Times have been on the blocked websites list in China because they are “politically sensitive”. Instead, they created their own social networking tools, Weibo. There are a couple different Weibo that launched by different companies, but all of them are in cooperation of the Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China.

WeChat,a popular messaging app for smart phone which is similar to WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger etc, is also under censorship. Messages that contain some keywords will be filtered and blocked. Users who send those messages will receive a message saying” The message you sent contains restricted works. Please try again”.

In September last year, The Chinese Government finally allows a small selection of people to access those banned websites including Facebook and Twitter. However, the small selection of people means people that live in that specific 17 square mile area of Shanghai. Many say this is a great start of the revolution, but I am not as optimistic as the rest. I do acknowledge the changes that have been made in years, however, I believe this incident is only a one-time exception that the government made.

[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 03:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST EVERYTHING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA: OF FREE SPEECH AND LIES

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-lee-untruths-spread-through-social-media-hard-correctE

But rather than other people or web robots doing the filtering, we should be teaching our young people how to filter good and reliable information from bad ones, especially on social media.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
[[User:akk22|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

NEW IDEA - ONLINE SOFTWARE FOR BUILDING THE COUNTRY FROM COLLABORATIVE FREE SPEECH

I am thinking of Soft Systems approaches used in operations research such as the use of "cognitive maps" described by Colin Eden (UK). If there is an issue of national interest, we could have every interested person contribute to an interactive online cognitive map which has a "revert-to-earlier-version" function like in Wikipedia. That way whoever contributes would have a sense of ownership of the map. Positive or negative influence of one factor on another can be indicated by "+" and "-" signs and strength of relationship can be shown with line thickness of the arrows. The contributor's name and his reasons or evidence for the added link could be displayed by clicking on the connecting arrow. Well, this idea is not really new as Colin Eden had developed a software for this called COPE...but this will need to be enhanced with the additional features suggested.....Also, if one contributor says "A ---->+ B" and another disagrees, the map could be modified with a second link from A to B as "A ---->+ C ----> -B", while still retaining the original link. Most probably a detailed read of the description of the first link would lead one to suggest "A ----> -D ----> +B" as a replacement for the original link. Thus, the map will give us a "richer" picture of the elements affecting a particular issue as new links are added.

See: "Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development". ( in 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.)). Wiley 1989.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:15, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

In related news... [http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/winter-olympics/26223586 Team GB want social media protection] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 12:16, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----
In reviewing the readings for this week, and digging deeper into the subject area; I walked away with a true appreciation of a topic that I believed was easily defineable. Perhaps this is indicative of the escalated polarization of issues and beliefs that we are currently experiencing. Bensech's concern about dangerous speech made an argument that I welcomed to entertain. After more thought, I began to question the notion of censorship and the ultimate guideline for who decides what is acceptable. I am uncomfortable with any corporation placing limitations on private speech. I am more comfortable with the cultural norms of the local community self-regulating. Realizing this may not be perfect, to err on the side of the collective conscious seems a much better path to civility.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:33, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Observing the behavior of current providers and government leaders positions about the content of information, I see that there are not, and probably never will be, absolutely effective legal or technological mechanisms to control content on the Internet. If the issue were simple , all undesirable socially behaviors that occur in network - the dissemination of child pornography , intellectual property infringement , manifestations of racial hatred, and many others - would be ceased a long time ago.
I agree that technological control mechanisms achieved by providers, for example, the one which can do a simply edit an information available on web site in order to remove or correct any references that cause damage; may also erase the contents of a given page or even remove files from the server that you use to store your information . Being a common and effective means of control, once the content provider is one who exercises direct control over the information or files available on the respective web site or server and may take steps to remove or block access to infringing material . Therefore , it is up to the judge to determine the adoption of reasonable technical mechanisms together with all other support measures that may be useful to obtain specific performance or equivalent practical result .
The implementation of drastic measures to control content on the Internet should be reserved for extreme cases, when this obvious public interest provided that the weighted potential damage caused to third parties, should not be adopted in other cases , especially when dealing with individual interest except in very exceptional situations, which represent rare exceptions .
The difficulties inherent in the protection of rights within the Internet can cause some perplexity . However , it is a reminder : the network is a reflection of society and , as such , imperfect and subject to injustice . If until today was not possible tutelary with absolute perfection all rights provided in a legal system, we would be innocent to expect different results us internet related conflicts .
The documentary about Mark Zuckerberg describes about the challenges faced by faced by Facebook regarding the control of content. http://youtu.be/5WiDIhIkPoM [[User:Gisellebatista|Gisellebatista]]

----
Professor Sellars,
I feel that your "Structural Weaknesses" piece adequately addressed many key issues surrounding internet censorship of speech, especially the fact that extensive private regulation already happens among several different parties. I also especially liked your astute observation that the tragic Benghazi situation was far more nuanced than simply one person posting a video to YouTube; there were many pre-existing societal issues at play. I do have a one question about the piece, though: When writing about how the White House requested that YouTube remove the video, you opine that the White House did so "very inappropriately." Are you saying that the manner in which the White House made the request was inappropriate, or was it inappropriate for the White House to make such a request at all? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think, seeing as how this request seems to involve the "bully pulpit" aspect of the President's executive branch, which in this case uses speech in order to regulate speech. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:19, 18 February 2014 (EST)

----

Re: Internet censorship, first video: I was particularly surprised that Google provides (or provided) near realtime indicators of takedown notices and censorship, country to country. It would be interesting to look into potential backlash to this, on a country-by-country basis, on the corporate or governmental level. (Though, perhaps Google has grown so large that it has cultivated a bit of immunity?) That being said, later in the video it did mention that corporations (theoretically even Google) are on “their turf” and have no choice but to comply.

A theme that keeps coming up in these readings, and in class, is that our perception of our freedoms on internet seem to be skewed. It’s almost inherent in our dealings with the net. Why do we, generally speaking, have this idealized view? An example could be user-created content — websites, commenting, user-focused platforms, etc. etc. In general, user driven content… the fact that anyone can theoretically add to the web space, with relatively low visibility. This could be leaving us with this idea that the web is truly open. The wide availability of pornography actually comes to mind as a decent example… In that, if this real-world, regulated material is so widely available online, then the net must be a “free” space.

Re: Dangerous speech vs. hate speech: While watching this video it occurred to me — when she was speaking about not needing to limit the hate speech itself — that the internet provides people with such wide access to information across the globe, so that this hate speech could be accessible in a volatile area, thus making it also dangerous speech. She didn’t mention that fact, but perhaps I missed it in another reading…. It strikes me that it would be hard to define this based on territory and context, given widespread access to the web. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-11T19:15:12Z

Twood: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [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] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic.
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… [[User:Twood|Twood]] 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2014-02-11T16:29:51Z

Twood: /* 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.'''

''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 12, 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/is2013/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, in the following format:

* AmyAnn0644

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

* Wiki Edited: Marwari Yuva Manch -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwari_Yuva_Manch

* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AmyAnn0644_Assignment1.docx
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 16:39, 10 February 2014 (EST)

[[User:Andy|Andy]] 19:58, 14 November 2013 (EST)
----

* margorm (class wiki), marengo5 (Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VERIFY]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosensor - Revamped the section on Interferometric Reflectance Imaging Sensor]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment1_Monroe.rtf Verifibility Report by Margo Monroe]

([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 19:19, 10 February 2014 (EST))
----

*AKK22 (on this wiki, and Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprout_(TV_network) Sprout]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kauth_Assignment1.pdf Report PDF]

----

* Jradoff (on this wiki), Tarinth (on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:V]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_systems Generative systems]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment1Radoff.txt Report Text]

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 12:21, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Dancoron (in the class wiki), DCorona501st (is my name on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VERIFY]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Corp - My addition Roland JV-80 Synthesizer & ROland SR-JV80 Expansion boards]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dancoron_assignment1.doc My report of Verifiability]
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 15:33, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----
* Castille (on class Wiki), Stille1002 (on Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_compensation]
* [REPORT: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_ONE.doc]
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

* jkelly (class wiki). jkelly88 (Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunset_Tree The Sunset Tree]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1]
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 21:36, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

* ichua (class wiki); iyhchua (Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_compartment_of_leg]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU-E120_Assignment1_IanChua.pdf Assignment 1]
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:11, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Watson
* Rule chosen: NPOV -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* Wiki Edited: Silk Road(marketplace) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)
* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment1.docx
--[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:22, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Drogowski (on this Wiki) drogowski (on Wikipedia)

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

* Wiki Edited: Uniform Investment Adviser Law Exam -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Investment_Adviser_Law_Exam

* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Daniel_Rogowski_LSTU_Project_1.docx

----

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Philip Seyfi ([[User:Seifip|Seifip]])
* Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
* Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford
* Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Seyfi%2C_Philip_-_Assignment_1.pdf
----
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Aysel Ibayeva
* Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
* Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
* Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Verifiability.docx. [[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 11:27, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----
* Pseudonym: Twood
* Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_journalism
* Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_one_twood.rtf [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:29, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-28T16:23:48Z

Twood: /* 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 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)