Internet Out of Control?

After looking at Liz and Martine's blog posts from last week I realized there are a lot of connections between free speech and the internet with specific attention to social networking sites. I think it would be really interesting to be the one in charge of monitoring a site like Facebook for inappropriate or unwelcome content. Who decides what content is deemed inappropriate? As a facebook user, I don't know specifically what content gets people kicked off. I was never directly informed that's for sure. Perhaps in the agreement when you first register they have it in small print somewhere, but I definitely don't remember seeing it. When I first started reading the Goldsmith article, it made me a little uneasy to know that there is so much uncontrollable content on the internet. Because its lack of physical space, it's so difficult to institute rules and regulations and carry out reinforcement when those standards aren't kept. I for one would never want to see the google results for Nazi paraphernalia or that there are any at all. The movie Untraceable sums up all the fears that people carry about the internet. This whole idea of anonymous spaces on the internet makes people think they can do whatever they please. Because the internet is used by so many people it makes controlling it seem, well impossible. Social standards seem to disappear when people can hide behind a screen. People get bolder online because they feel they won't have to deal with the consequences. Goldsmith doesn't ever really give a solution to this regulation failure but instead points out that territorial lines are becoming invisible and boundaries crossed. It's up to us to figure out what to do about that.

Media Groups and Politics

I know in class we've had a lot of discussion concerning the formation of groups through new media resources. This is a very interesting topic for me in particular because I am a politics minor and there is a good amount of crossover into my politics class this semester. The amount that media has impacted the election process is tremendous. It was a large part of Obama's campaign. The democratic party chose to embrace new media by forming accounts on facebook and twitter. They were able to reach a whole new demographic, including younger and first time voters. Also, the use of social networking sites enabled the campaign to form groups more easily and faster than ever. People could get involved in the campaigning by volunteering or donating with the click of a button. This helped reach more people and build Obama's coalition. I think that this is a real life example of the borders that group formation online is breaking. The entire campaigning world is changing because of the internet and specifically social networking sites. I think its just really interesting to see how politicians are molding themselves to fit the times and how active people can become in their own way. Any citizen can now have an active role in a campaign effort from the comforts of their own home. Groups are taking on all new capabilities as forces to be reckoned with, much like they did in the Shirky article.

Virtual Worlds

So I thought the frontline documentary we watched in class was really interesting and decided to view some of the other segments. The one that struck me was labeled Virtual Worlds. It discusses the use of virtual gaming basically to simulate face to face interaction. Now I know most people would think, oh cool virtual games must be awesome and of course if I were into video games I would be excited about it too. But these people of Second Life are using virtual worlds to a new extreme. I went on their website and it kind of freaks me out. People are now using virtual worlds to replace their interactions in the most crucial ways. For instance, people are now going to business meetings via their virtual world. They have 'avatars' that they can customize to look like themselves and use microphones to literally have a business meeting. They will shake hands and sit down around a conference table or even go get coffee via this virtual life. The whole idea is really creepy to me. Do people really think that this virtual world is substantially replacing the idea of physical contact that we miss in video chat or phone calls? I find trying to bring the real world literally into the virtual world is an outrageous concept. I would feel silly trying to move around my avatar in front of my boss. I think it degrades how a corporate meeting works and the importance of human interaction. I would never want to be a part of this Second Life or any type of virtual world for that matter. I'm perfectly fine living out here... in the real world.



here's a little thing i just stumbled upon... perhaps it captures the absurdity of virtual living...

CyberSpace Rehab? Really?

After looking at the Frontline documentary in class I thought I would look into the South Korean rehab programs for kids addicted to the Internet. This idea is so bizarre to me and I would how it can be normal or acceptable to Koreans, parents, or anyone for that matter. All throughout this class we discuss how the Internet and new media affects society and the world. And time after time I feel like telling some of these researchers and scientists that we are the ones creating and manipulating the media. It's not the other way around. People so often act like media is something that has happened to us but who brought media into the picture? We did. I'm not sure if these people who constantly claim to be the victim enjoy feeling sorry for themselves or what. Sometimes people just need a good hard dose of self-control and discipline. Yes, new media is becoming more integrated into our daily lives. Yes, the world is changing and developing into something it wasn't before. But that is what history is. That is what life is. Older generations will always criticize their predecessors and say they have it too easy. But let's remember that we are controlling the media or we should be at least. These kids who are becoming addicted to cyberspace are ridiculous. Their parents should be taking a greater role in their lives and computer usage. And the kids should be able to see all the great things life has to offer outside of the computer. I did a little more research on the topic and found an informative article from The New York Times. It has a lot of interesting statistics and information regarding this 'epidemic' and includes some acknowledgments of the problem in other countries. Check it out.

A Step Too Far?

After reading The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, I couldn't help but think of One Laptop Per Child Project. As much as I want this project to be successful and perhaps one of the most innovative projects I've ever read about, I have my doubts. I've been a dancer for the majority of my life and I started teaching classes at my studio to the younger students. Learning dance is progressive. You need to learn the basic skills and movements before you can move on to more advance steps and routines. I feel as though the One Laptop Per Child project is like putting a beginner in an advanced class. Just like a dancer needs to build up skills, strengths, and techniques, countries need to have a progression. With the OLPC project students might feel contempt for their governments because they can provide them with laptops but not clean water. I feel like the project has great objectives and I almost hope that my thoughts concerning it are wrong, but they are skipping a step. I do believe that providing people with information can only assist in development but I don't know if this is the right way. Technology should be helping Third World countries to better standards of living and education to advance them. And perhaps this is just the way to do it. But anyone could go into an advance dance class and learn something, whether it would be productive or worth it in the end is a different story. Without the foundations, a country, where technology is just thrust upon them, might collapse.

Internet at Its Finest

The article we read in class talked a lot about the negative reasons the digital divide is constantly a concern. While some of the reasons Luyt brought up were legitimate, I think that technology and the Internet should be used to close the other gaps that may seem more important than the Digital Divide. The Internet enables information to spread like wildfire. We all know this. But why not use the Internet to help raise awareness or spread information to help people who don't have the luxury of wireless or a computer or medicine or clean water for that matter. Last semester I came across a program put together by Starbucks. It's called Starbucks Love Project. I think this is a great use of the Internet to raise money for people with AIDS in Africa. People can donate money, or make a drawing to add to the collage of thousands. Starbucks donates money for every drawing made and you can view all the pictures that have already been submitted. It is almost overwhelming to see all the pictures next to each other. Its obvious that people want to help and will if they have the opportunity. Also groups of people all over the world have sent in videos singing "All you need is love". Starbucks put together all the videos and have it playing on the website so viewers can see the combination of all the different countries represented. This project allows people to just take a couple minutes out of their day to help someone else. I think this is the Internet at its finest. It's these ideas that need to be the concern of the Digital Divide. Making people aware of the struggles people face and giving them opportunities to help is what the Internet should be doing. That's no fantasy.

Personalization = BORING!

So this is my first blog ever.... wish me luck!

We spent a lot of time last class talking about new media and how education should react to it, this often includes a suggestion of personalization. We started talking about personalization and what would happen if everything we encountered was exactly what we had pre-picked. This really just makes me want to scream! How boring would that be! I would never want to constantly be around people who had the same thoughts and tastes as me. People thrive off competition and difference. I am always learning from other people and most of the time I enjoy the new things I discover. My best friend and I are completely different. She is always giving me new music and ideas and vice versa. Personalization can be a helpful tool in new media but people need to consider that, like most things, it is better in moderation. If people are only reading what they choose for themselves it will inevitably create a close minded and hard headed society. People will no longer know how to interact with ideas that differ from theirs. Also I don't think I have ever encountered a person that has the exact thoughts or tastes as me. So only interacting with people who match me would lead to little to no human connection. How sad! People love conflict! Don't deny it. Every time you encounter someone who has completely different ideals than you it is a challenge. Even fighting with them is fun in a strange way. Because every time you have to defend your beliefs you learn to understand them a little bit better and either become steadier in them or find something that takes you by surprise, that opens up a whole new world for you to explore.