While I was debating what to blog about this week, I started thinking about how I usually think of topics. The first place I typically start out at is Google. I start at google for a number of things. For my senior thesis paper I first started googling different ideas until i realized my topic. When I hear about a job or a company that I might be interested in working for the first thing I do is google the company. I use google every day, multiple times a day. It is a starting point for almost everything that I need to get done on the internet, and offline. I google people, and random things when I am bored, procrastinating, busy, at any time of day, etc. I even googled the google image that you see above. And now that I have an iphone, I can google anything I want, whenever I want, wherever I am. . Within a short span of time I recently googled:

- How to get a stain out of a winter coat

- Gift ideas for moms

- Chili's locations

- Elizabeth Edwards

- Baked chicken recipes

- 10 day forecast

Needless to say I am a major information seeker, but I don't think I am alone. It is amazing how many times a day one person visits google. Wikipedia (another huge conglomerate that people use to seek all kinds of facts, but we'll stick to just google for today) asserts that google gets over 400 million searches a day, and while that number is extremely high, it still seems kind of low to me. In my paper, I talked about Collectivism and how the major sites like Google and Wikipedia are taking up all of the web traffic. When I look at my own Internet usage, this seems to be true. The moral of this post is, as google is a starting point for many internet searches, Where would we be without it?

Saving the internet

While talking about net neutrality today in class, I started thinking about whether there were any current court cases regarding ISPs trying to slow down connection to some websites. Freedom on the internet is such a broad and debated issue and whether or not ISPs have the authority to regulate what services they offer and at what price is an arguable topic. In April of 2010, there was a federal court case involving Comcast and high traffic video sites such as Youtube in which the court decided ultimatley that Comcast (and all other internet service providers) had limited power to over web traffic under current law. This ruling caused an uproar from the F.C.C. which strives to have explicit control over Internet service, and whose ultimate goal is to remove all rights of ISPs to control web traffic. As I was reading about this case, I came across this website, called savetheinternet.com. The goal of this website is to campaign for Congress to make a law that upholds net neutrality across the internet, and no longer allows internet service providers to take part in allowing one website slower connection than another. The website has a blog, and donations section which could help contribute to the campaign. The whole premise is based on the future of the internet and is a common ground where "two million everyday people who have banded together with thousands of nonprofit organizations, buisnesses and bloggers to protect internet freedom." I think the video on the website did an awesome job at explaining net neutrality, and why it is important that it be upheld. That video can be seen here on youtube --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o&feature=player_embedded

Facebook Freedom

This week's reading talked about the internet's recent shift from being open and free and the end of the web to more and more "monetary compensations" for things like internet on smartphones, apps, and similar pay as you go internet technologies. This got me thinking, even though we choose to pay for smartphones and apps and similar thinks for the convenience of having them, does this mean we take for granted the internet that we don't have to pay for? For example, I remember about a year ago (?) there was a huge controversy over a rumor that we would have to start paying for Facebook. The rumor stated that users would have to start paying 50$ a month in order to maintain their account. This is ridiculous in the first place, since Facebook collects revenue through advertisements, games, apps etc. An entire group was made in protest to this claim which over 1 million people joined. Many other groups were created including one that said "I'm quitting facebook if they start to charge". People everywhere were talking about this, wondering if it was true and deliberating over what they would do if Facebook really did start to charge. The enormous amount of feedback received as a result of this rumor just goes to show that we truly do take Internet freedom for granted, regardless that we have to pay extra to have it on our phones or iPads. Charging for Facebook would have a HUGE impact on the business it received, and the company would probably not be able to survive it. You can read Facebook's response to these rumors, which basically say that Facebook will never charge their users, here.

YouTube stars

This past week in class we've been talking about the power of youtube. Whether it be a "macaca" moment or "vlog" bullying, youtube has been proven to have the power to completley change someones life. David Karpf argues in his paper that we underestimate the effect YouTube can have on politics, citing the "Macaca Moment". His study claims that while YouTube has a significant influence on politics, it is only a tool used by political organizations and not the center or direct result of campaigns. This got me thinking about the influence of YouTube beyond politics, and its ability to make an average joe an instant celebrity, simply by making a video. Mostly, these people enjoy their 10 minutes of fame, being exploited around the internet, whether thier videos are funny and shared on facebook or moving and emotional. I know my friends and I have exchanged countless YouTube videos of rediculous people who became semi-famous for a week or two. The "celebrities" fade in and out. One week they could be getting hundreds of thousands of hits, and could be circulated across the globe, and the next they could be back to reality, the same as they were before their youtube stardom. However, in some cases, these YouTube stars last a little longer than usual, and can gain attention from other media sources as a result of their YouTube videos. This article talks about how Youtube jumpstarted the careers of several extremely successful celebrites. LonelyGirl, whose videos we viewed in class, went on to land a role in the popular tv show "Greek". And most notably, Justin Bieber found his big break when his mom posted a video of him singing popular R&B songs and was discovered by a producer in Atlanta.

These are the success stories of talented and trained performers, but as I mentioned before, there are other YouTube stars out there who are either completley serious in posting videos that others find hilarious, or just post videos that they find funny and become instant hits. I have two recent examples of videos which have become insanely popular, and have resulted in stardom and other opportunities for their stars. The first is Antoine Dodson, who I am sure most of you have heard of. He was first seen on a news segment because an intruder had broken into his sister's home and tried to rape her. He was famously quoted saying "Hide ya kids, Hide ya wives, because everybody's gonna get raped" which subsequently has become a famous line and has made him into an internet sensation. His famous quotes from that video have been made into a music video, "The Bed Intruder Song" which he has been performing in various shows across the country. He also was featured on a commercial for a sex offender traffic application for Cell phones. His original video can be viewed here. Another recent "celebrity" is Keenan Cahill, a 15 year old who is most known for posting videos of himself in his bedroom, lip-singing along to his favorite songs. Recently, he was featured on the popular late night television show "Chelsea Lately" where he was given the opportunity to recreate one of these videos with famous rapper 50 cent. That can be viewed here. Although these two Youtube stars will probably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks, their stories just go to show how popular an everyday person can become by simply posting or even being featured (in Dodson's case) in a video on youtube.

Marie Claire at the center of controversy..... again

This week, I did my presentation on Healthy Living Blogs and the cyber uproar surrounding the Marie Claire article that was written about them. Recently, Marie Claire has come under fire again for an article posted on their website called "Should Fatties get a room?". This article was written about the new sitcom on CBS called Mike and Molly, which is about an overweight couple who meet at Overeaters anonymous. The author of the article, seen here, describes how uncomfortable she feels watching fat people on TV. Her exact words are "Yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I to watch them doing anything,". She says that she finds it aesthetically displeasing to even see fat people in general. Her defense is that the show is "implicitly promoting obesity". She ends the article by asking "Do you think I am being an insensitive jerk?". The answer around the internet has been an overwhelming YES. There have been numerous blog and twitter postings that call for the boycotting of Marie Claire, their and Facebook page has once again been bombarded with comments from appalled readers. People have called the author insensitive and small-minded among other things. The controversy was even shown on the today show, seen here -->http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39868583.

The online whirlwind created surround Marie Claire, is an example of the active participation talked about in the Jenkins article. This became a collaborative effort among those who were offended by the article, across the blog world, facebook, twitter and other forms of online open discussion, in which everyone could contribute and together could evoke a response large enough to be covered on such a widespread show as the Today show. There has been a online boycott of Marie Claire that thousands of people have rallied around. In the past, controversial articles would never have received this much feedback. However, with New Media, almost anyone can be a part of the effort to create buzz on a subject.

The Sims teaching Governance?

So today in class we talked about the participatory culture on the internet that youth today thrive off of. Kids today are more internet savvy then ever and our culture is changing to adapt to the dependence we have on media technologies in schools, corporate companies, politics and even just at home. In the Jenkins reading, a few kids were mentioned as new media protege's for the next great leaders and activisits of our time. These kids included a young girl who became the president of an large online Sims community, a girl who started "The Daily Prophet" the online newspaper for the fictional Hogwarts school, and the boy who created Firefox at only 14 among others. Jenkins notes that they aquired their skills; how to campaign and govern, read, write, edit and defend etc; by peer and self-teaching on the internet. A commonality that I noticed among these kids was that a few of them enjoyed playing The Sims online.

The Sims is an offline and online game of simulated characters which are controlled by the player. The Sims online is one of the largest online gaming communities that has expanded to podcasts, twitter, facebook, and youtube. Players of the Sims Online can create virtual characters and become part of a community where they can be as active of a member of the community as they want. It seems like this is where Ashley Richardson, the middle schooler who gained control of Alphaville, learned how to govern over a city. Alphaville is the largest city on the Sims online. Alphaville's reign ended in 2008, but the Sims online continues to be a large community of multi-player audiences. Although I wasn't able to find any current sims communities (perhaps you have to be a member?) this website details the newest version of the Sims community, in which you can download and share sims creations with your friends. I didn't find anything like Alphaville with an online governance, but in regards to the Sims, it seems a little rediculous to me.

From what I remember of the Sims, it was a fun game to create houses, make people and dress them up and then control how their lives went (where they worked, whether they got married, had kids etc.) When I was in middle school, it never became about interacting with hundreds of other people in order to run an entire city. You had your own sim, and that was it. I agree with most of Jenkin's optimistic outlook on the power of kids on the internet, but i am not sure that it is right to promote that kids are learning skills readily applicable to real world situations from Online games like The Sims.

Perez Hilton = bully?

One of my favorite blogs to visit online is PerezHilton.com, who recently has come under a lot of fire. Many know perez as the openly gay, self-proclaimed "queen of media". His blog is labeled as the most hated blog in hollywood. He regularly makes fun of celebrities by calling them unflattering nicknames, drawing on their faces, and insinuating things about them that may not be true. He's infamous for being witty and clever, but at the expense of insulting many people. Being an avid gay rights activist, he has recently addressed the issue of cyber-bullying and the suicides that have been committed as a result. He expresses disgust with those who bully via the internet, and offers resources for those who are victims of the bullying. He seems to feel strongly about the topic, however, he does not address the bullying that goes on every day on his website. While I personally am not quick to call perez a bully, because many of us make fun of celebrities and have our own opinions of them, regardless of whether we know them or not, many have called him hypocritical because of his constant use of cyber-bullying while he tries to stand against it. Because of this, Perez posted a video seen here, where he gets teary-eyed and vows to stop bullying and be kinder to celebrities. He says he used to justify everything as comedy and humor, but does not want to be called a bully. He even went on Ellen Degeneres to proclaim his will to change, which can be viewed here.

As I said before, I do not think that I would classify Perez as a bully in the same way that I would cyber-bullies. However, while I find a lot of what he posts about celebrities funny, mainly because they are all so distant that their worlds feel like an entirely different world from mine, I never thought about how they might feel about Perez's hurtful insults. I always assumed Perez's website was kind of a fun, guilty pleasure for people who wanted to be updated on celebrity gossip. I assumed those who he wrote about never read that kind of nonsense and therefore weren't offended by it. However, I see now that it was a type of bullying, and no cyber-bullying should be taken for granted. It will be interesting to see if Perez really does become "kinder" and whether or not he changes his ways.

"I like it...."

Although I have incorporated Face book into almost every blog so far, there was a topic this week that I could not pass up. One night last week, I received a number of Facebook messages with the breast cancer "I Like it Campaign" challenge. In order to support breast cancer, the campaign was to send out a series of messages to all of your friends asking them to post where they like to hang their purses. That night, there were hundreds of statuses with the quote "I like it...... on my bed" or "In my car" etc. etc. Of course this was only the statuses' of women and it left many of the men on face book feeling very confused, as it alluded to a certain other activity. It was amazing to me how fast this trend caught on, and how many of my face book friends were actually posting their statuses as such. Many of the statuses I saw were meant to be funny or a joke, some were serious. And the more statuses there were, the more boys on Face book started to get fed up. One of my guy friend's status' read "If I see one more "I like it" status I'm going to kill myself". While a little extreme, the overload of status updates were starting to get annoying. I didn't really understand how posting such a telling status was professing your support of breast cancer, but I also figured that at least people were becoming more aware. The Times Newsfeed said ".. What exactly does provocatively saying where you like to keep your purse or bra have to do with a horrible disease that has challenged the lives of so many?". Regardless, the campaign was catching on, and gaining a lot of supporters, which is what social media is all about in our generation. The spread of news and information over the course of hours and the ability for this trend to catch on and create such a frenzy, gives light to the power of social networks. This article explains that the idea is to leave men in the dark and that the "I like it" trend is an attempt for women to unite around the cause in a top secret way. While some think that this demeans breast cancer, I think it is a clever way to raise awareness and there is no better way to spark people's interest than to start the trend via facebook.

When online bullying goes too far..

In last semester's new media class we talked about the effects of cyber-bullying. The internet gives kids free reign to endlessly torment their peers without actually having to do it to their faces. The victims of cyber-bullying are often too embarrassed to tell an adult, or they just don't want to be picked on more. Kids bully each other in chat rooms, through websites where they can post anonymously, or within groups or face-book walls. Unlike face to face encounters, cyber-bullying has no boundaries. More recently in class we talked about how any photo, video or status that you put on the internet will be there forever, for anyone to see, no matter how embarrassing or unflattering it may be. People need to be more careful of what they put online because it could end up having terrible consequences.

For me personally, I didn't think cyberbullying existed in my generation. I thought that kind of teasing and gossiping stayed in high school and ended with high school. However, the recent and horribly tragic death of Rutger's student Tyler Clementi proved me wrong. This link from the new york times describes the lengths to which online bullying can push someone. It talks about something we've touched on in class, which is how online you can say anything, or be anybody and you can believe that there won't be in any consequences. (In my opinion, 18 is far too old to find "cyber-bullying" funny or even morally right) Why make fun of someone in person when you have the ability to humiliate them on a much larger scale? The author points out the fact often, the line between what is real and what is online is blurred. These kids acted online thinking that there would be no consequence for their behavior, because they were sitting safely behind a screen. Unfortunately, it takes something as horrendous and vicious as this case to get people to stop and think about cyber-bullying and the effects that it is having on the victims.

Lastly, I wanted to post this video An Important Message - From Ellen DeGeneres (Gay Suicide) made my Ellen DeGeneres that I have seen everywhere from Facebook to twitter to Youtube. Ellen spoke out on her show, but through the power of the internet, millions more were able to see her important message. As devastating as some of the effects of the internet can be, the widespread sharing of this hopeful video shows that the Internet can be as helpful as it is harmful.

In colle

Celebrities and Facebook

Talking about privacy on facebook in class this week got me thinking about those people in society who have perhaps the least privacy of all....celebrities. A while ago when I was a freshman in high school and had just joined myspace, I remember one of the big "fads" was to post your pictures on worldisround.com. This was right around the time when the tv show, laguna beach had come out. Obviously this show became a hit fast, and to myself and most other 15 year old girls (the target audience), the people on the show became instant celebrities. I remember being at my friends house one night, when she told me she had found one of the show's characters worldisround account pictures. This was a huge deal to us and to everyone else who we showed, because it was like a personal insight into these kids lives, which revealed things that the show did not. However, a soon as the show became a big time hit, the pictures and account were removed.
Similarly today, as soon as someone becomes famous, their facebook account is bombarded with requests, messages etc. etc. As fans people tend to view facebook or online accounts as personal, private insights into these celebrities lives. Most really big timer celebrities (think julia roberts or tom cruise) don't have any sort of social media spaces. They get enough attention as it is. However, people who are lower down on the popularity scale have taken advantage of facebook's Fan Pages. Facebook fan pages are another way for celebrities to interact and connect with fans, without it being a total invasion of privacy. They can update funny statuses and pictures and receive hundreds of comments. This is usually a one way street, as they typically don't respond to those who write on their wall, and you are not a personal friend of the celebrity but one of thousands of fans who "like" them. The amount of people who become your "fan" can be directly linked to how popular you are in the media at that moment. for example this link talks about how lady gaga surpassed president obama with facebook fans. A testement attributed mostly to the types of people who are on facebook and who actually like celebrity fan pages. As of this past summer, when Gaga was perhaps at her highest peak of celebredom, she managed to rack up 10 million facebook fans.
In regards to privacy, celebrities are not able to have the luxury of having private facebook pages, as we have seen firsthand through class discussions that that rarely works. Pictures posted of celebrities on facebook are just one more way for the media to obtain them and for the rest of the world to see, which has happened numerous times. However, fan pages have become a new way, along with twitter, blogs, websites and other social media forms, for fans to feel like they can have little taste of their favorite celebrities day to day lives.

Internet = A Dangerous Outlet

Some people use art to express themselves, others do so through sports or yoga, but today increasingly more young people are finding their identity through internet blogs and sights such as myspace and face book. Its no secret that most of us spend way too much time on the internet. But as seen in this weeks reading, many young people have started to use the internet as a space to express themselves through pictures, blogs, statuses, quotes etc. It is a way for kids to get away from their hectic daily schedules and socialize in a free space, where they can do and say what they want. Some people take this to the extreme, and use the internet to expose every detail of their life, to post inappropriate pictures or to vent about a problem they are having. Talking about this in class reminded me of my senior year of high school, when we had a speaker talk to us about "cleaning up" our images on the internet, before we started applying to colleges. In other words, we were told that it would be smart for us to take down any pictures of underage drinking, or other inappropriate behavior, cursing on our page etc. Back then, I didn't really think much of it, but as my younger brother starts applying to college, I thought I'd do a little research about just how many colleges actually check Face Book or MySpace. I came across this article, which basically says that today, one out of 10 college admissions officers checks applicants Face books, and 88% of recruitment officers. Because of this, the Internet may not be a space for kids to socially connect and express themselves anymore. Anything kids today put online could be held against them, which, in many cases, they do not understand.

Private or Public?

In class this week we talked a lot about privacy online. In a world where almost everyone has their own personal online space, it is hard to define where to draw the line with what information you make available and to whom you make it available. Pretty much everyone that you meet nowadays can be searched for on Face book, Linkedin, or even google. This is where the privacy in the real world verses online becomes blurry. For example you may meet someone briefly in person, and form your opinion on them based on that meeting. From that meeting they may seem like someone who is quiet or someone who is reserved, but when you search for them online (Face book) their pictures could present an entirely different persona. They could have pictures of them dancing on a bar or taking shots with friends that rival your initial opinion of them. Privacy on Face Book can be controlled. The reading on SNS argues that such sites "do not provide users with the flexibility they need to handle conflicts with Friends who have different conceptions of privacy". This could create trouble for offline relationships. If someone was to make all of their information private, it could offend those who can no longer see their information.

Privacy can also affect personal offline relationships in other ways. For example a good friend might find out that you are engaged at the same time as someone you barely know, because of Face book. This complicates relationships, because you would obviously want your good friends to know of your happy news before anyone else. However, this is all a part of "social networking". I think that in time, people will learn easier ways to bridge the gap between their online and offline relationships.

Is Cloaking easy to spot?

This week in class we discussed cloaked websites and cyber-racism. From the article, we learned that there is a wide-range of cloaking websites, from political cloaking to corporate. There are also different levels of cloaking in which the website may either openly identify itself and its agenda or it could be more complicated, in which the website might operate out of different countries or lie about its broadcasting. During our discussion, I tried to think of a website that I may have come across that was cloaked. Then I started to think, would I even know if a website I had visited was a cloaked website? I think in some cases it is fairly obvious, as we discussed in class, but in others it may not be as simple. Thinking back, I remember for a project in one of my classes, we had to look up websites that were Pro-Life, and those that were more informative on reproductive health and Pro-Choice. I remember coming across one website called www.teenbreaks.com, that seemed to be Pro-Choice from the outside. This was a website for teens that had advice and information on issues ranging from relationships and sexual abuse to abortion and pregnancy. From just the home page, it looked to me like it was about sexual health and issues relating to it. It did not seem to be taking a Pro-Life stance whatsoever, nor did it seem to be promoting absitence. However, one of the links was named "sex is awesome" and when you click on it, the word UNLESS is the first bolded image on the page, followed by a list of reasons why you should wait to have sex. The website also has pregnancy and abortion links. In the pregnancy link, there is useful information, advice and self-help numbers to call, while in the abortion section, there are a number of cons against abortion as well as long-term effects and hardly any information. There are hundreds of success stories from girls who decided to keep their children while the stories of girls who had abortions are all filled with regret. Although I did not recognize it at the time, this was clearly a cloaked website, and was very heavily pro-life. At the outset, one might not see that this website has a hidden agenda, but as you browse the links, it is clear. Before realizing this website was cloaked, I thought I would have an easy time at recognizing a cloaked website when I saw one. However, teenbreaks.com prooved that its not as easy as it looks.

CyberBullies

In class this week, we watched numerous videos on Cyber-Bullying. Teens and Tweens today have so much access to technology, it becomes something that they can abuse. It has become part of their social norm, and they use it to interact with each other in any way that they can, whether it be to talk online, post pictures of one another or publicly humiliate each other. Bullying is something that has gone on forever, but now that it has expanded onto the internet, it has become dangerous. Kids are being tortured online, and this torture has led to horrible tragedies such as suicides. One ad that we watched in class that stood out to me was the ad about the girl who got up on stage and started to bad-mouth another girl in the audience. The premise was that if you wouldn't say something to someone's face, then do not say it about them online. This ad reminded me of a website that my 14 year old cousin first turned me on too. One day, on her facebook page, my cousin Nicole posted a website called www.formspring.com onto her status. I clicked on it and was amazed by what I saw. You can anonymously post whatever you want about this person, any kind of statement, question, fact, dirty joke, and the person whose formspring it is can answer. Although I wasn't impressed by this website, Nicole's formspring wasn't horrible. It was mostly posts by her friends with inside jokes or "your so pretty, where do you get your makeup" etc. But occasionally there would be the post "You and your friends are stuck up b*****s" or something of the sort, in which she responded with "Who is this?". This kind of website opens up a whole new realm of cyber-bullying. The fact that kids are willingly creating an open forum for their peers to bash them is scary. Nicole told me that she has seen worse on formspring than her own; kids writing terrible things about each other which spark rumors etc, and lead to even more bullying. According to Conway, I think that this kind of "terrorism" wouldn't be classified as use rather than misuse. It is not causing any kind of real disturbance besides the fact that it has left multiple teenage girls distraught about their social status's. However, it could lead to worse, which makes it a threat. These are the kinds of websites that should be more regulated. Cyber-bullying is worse enough as it is, and websites such as formspring only feed into it.

iPad or iBad?

This week's class topic involved internet democracy. Today specifically we talked about the question of whether the internet expands our horizons by allowing us to interact with those whom we do not share the same beliefs (which according to Sunstein, we don't) or whether sharing our views in common spaces with those who have similar beliefs as we do helps to build relationships and expand beliefs (as the echo chambers article states). This argument got me thinking about the iPad, and where it fits in with these two opposite viewpoints. Although the echo-chambers article does not specifically mention polarization, I would have to say that the concept of the iPad is more in tune with Sunstein's idea. You can personalize the entire thing to be exactly what you want. Your music, your homepage You can choose applications based on your interests. It also seems like a multi-tasking device. You can look at pictures, read a book, listen to music and check the score of a baseball game all in the same instant. This is only adding to our generation's ability to be able to multi-task. The fact that it is mobile and more readily accessible than a laptop makes the ability to multi-task even easier. You can use in on a train or in a restaurant. The iPad is said to be "changing the things we do everyday". However, the only way it could connect people is if they are comparing it with each other. It has become another victim of polarization, and is furthering Sunstein's view that we are not expanding our horizons enough.

The battle for Internet Freedom

While here in America we have the EFF to govern Internet Freedom and much much more, including the regulation of all sorts of technological rights. With the EFF's help, the government might have a hard time getting a hold of anyone's information unless they have committed a very serious crime. They have filed lawsuits against the government ranging from cell-phone tracking the to raids of suspected video-game hackers, almost always resorting back to their motto of freedom of speech and information on the internet. While it might be nice that we have such a strict legal team to back up all of our internet rights, other countries cannot say the same. In my presentation this week, I briefly touched up the cases of China vs. Google and the litigation of the Italian government. This is the link to the website that I showed in class http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000415-38.html. I have also found more information on these issues regarding internet freedom. In Italy, the government (specifically president Silvio Berlusconi) has gone forward in setting up the government's ability to veto violent or pornographic content from YouTube. Google (which owns youtube) has filed a lawsuit against the government that says they are violating freedom of speech. This article further explains http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/italy-internet-regulation_n_433386.html. Just in the last week, google has shut down its search engine in China because of censorship, and has routed its users to Hong Kong instead. According the the Chinese government, this violates Chinese law and the promise google made to filter its search engine. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html

These are just two examples of many more that happen all across the world. Although freedom organizations do their best to stop it, government involvement in the internet seems like it will never end.

A new way to Organize

Shirkey's article regarding Group Organization on the Internet got me thinking about how much we really do use the Internet to come together and collaborate. Without the internet, I'm not exactly sure how I would know about many of the events, parties, meetings etc. that I am supposed to attend. It's shocking to think that at some point, people had to send letters or use word of mouth just to rally a group. Today, we have Facebook to create a birthday invitation telling all of our friends where to go, what time, and what to wear; we have email to coordinate a meeting with classmates whom we are doing a group project with; if no one is around to discuss our views on something currently happening in the news, we can go online and chat with thousands about how we feel. Today, it takes barely any time, effort or money to form a large open group forum surrounding a common interest. One example I can think of a large group forming online, before even meeting in person, is the College groups that incoming freshmen form to discuss their upcoming year. When I was coming into freshman year, there was a group on Facebook called CUA c/o 2011, in which a large percentage of my class belonged too. Through this group we could get to know each other, feel each other out, ask questions, relay fears and whatever else, without ever speaking a word to each other. I'm pretty sure that ten years ago, I would have gone to college not knowing a single face, but because of that facebook group, I already recognized a couple of people. I definitely think this new phenomenon of group formation is going to be helpful in the future. It is all part of the new mentality for americans to get stuff done quicker, better and more efficiently. This new technological age is one that can only grow from here.

Greater Good?

After reading Stallman's article this week, I came to several conclusions. While Stallman's heart is in the right place in his overall message that we should share software in order to be better citizens and break free from this selfish, economically consumed world that we live in, his hopes for the future of free software may not be realistic. One of his arguements is that hoarding software could have psycho-social harms in which we put our social bonds in danger. He compares the world to an anti-social jungle, in which everyone just tries to get ahead for themselves and expresses a hope that we can look beyond our own personal gain, to the greater good of the technological era. Initially, I thought this seemed a little naiive. How could he think people would want to work so hard on creating software, just out of the kindness of their heart? And for the greater good of society? Besides free music downloads, I didn't even know of any free software, and was sure that most people i knew didn't have free software either. But after seeing Liz and Emma's presentation of the FSF I was impressed with the amount of free software out there.It was also refreshing to see that Stallman's arguement was somewhat being put to good use, and that society isn't all bad. I started to think about the kinds of software I may have seen but never realized was free. In class we talked about software that Families could use in order to protect their kids from unwanted websites or regulate their computer usage. I babysat for a family that had software similar to this, but I had just figured that they paid for it. It did seem to be high tech software that not everyone had. It regulated what times the kids could be on the computer and within those time frames, what periods the kids could only use the computer for educational purposes and for games and recreation. It also blocked websites deemed innappropriate. After doing a couple searches, I found the software they were using and discovered it was free. Its called SafeFamilies and its mission is to provide safety and control for children online. I think this is one of the more noble free software technologies, because too often kids can get away with seeing a lot more then they should online. I think that having a childhood without computers until I was about 9 or 10 really benefitted me because I was never inside playing games or surfing the internet, but was always outside playing. Here is the link http://www.safefamilies.org/download.php. This website is an affirmation for Stallman's article that there are still some do-gooders out there, you just have to look a little harder to find them.

The Multi-taskers

The first thing I did when I woke up this morning was check my facebook. Everytime I come home from anywhere during the day, I don't sit down on the couch and relax, or call my mom, but like a mandatory routine, I go straight to the computer. I'm sure 90% of Catholic students would say the same. Whether people like to admit it or not, seeing that little red flag in the corner of your page that means you have a new notification, is one of the highlights of their day. In class, we watched a documentary about the gamers in China and Korea who "suffer" from an internet addiction. They're even sent to Internet rehab, to detox, and they developed heath problems due to their excessive Internet usage. It seems sad and pitiful; why not just take the computers away from these kids? Only allow them a certain amount of hours per day? How can you be addicted to something so rediculous? But are we really ones to talk? We may not spend 10 hours a day behind a computer, but we are constantly connected. We check our emails on the treadmill, we download music while we do our homework, we can't even tear ourselves away from facebook for 50 minutes during class. We may not go to the extremes of gaming for hours a day, and it might be easy for us to scold the parents of these kids for allowing them so much access to the computer, but personally if somebody was to take my blackberry or computer away for a day, I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Are we just as addicted to technology as these kids are in Asia? In the documentary, college kids boasted of their ability to multi-task. In class, we looked at the benefits of this new multi-tasking generation. Tapscott said we are more interactive with our education, and we learn faster. But the documentary prooved that we may not be as adept at multi-tasking as we'd like to thing. How much easier would it be to pay attention in class without the lure of facebook on our computers, or even sit down and do homework for one hour without going on the internet. If we put down our phones and computers, without "multi-tasking" we might be able to get alot more done than we think.

Laptops as teachers?

After reading the articles on "One Laptop per Child" mission, I read an article from 60 Minutes that went into greater detail about the non-profit organization. In the articles, I thought Bill Thompson made a good point in stating that even though kids in poorer countries may not even have necessities like food and water, and may not even go to school, they still need a laptop. He argued that laptops for these children would be the first step in providing a better future for their countries, because they will learn, expand and be able to attain more than they currently have through the Internet. The OX laptop creator, Nicholas Negroponte, stated that it took ten year old children only minutes to figure out how to use the laptop, and that with or without schooling, all children should have one. However, in the 60 minutes article, Lesley Stal argues against the point that both Thompson Negroponte make. He says that laptops are useless without a formal teacher to guide children through using it. He uses the example of music, saying that any child can pick up an instrument and make noise with it, but without someone to teach them how to make music, the instrument is useless. I agree with Stal. I think that while internet is important, these children must learn basic knowledge, and how to educate themselves through the Internet before they are simply handed one. I agree that it is an important step for countries with poor economies and living conditions to incorporate more money into not only providing laptops for these children, but for their education as well. If the future of Africa or Brazil or whatever the country in question is is not educated, then the country will just remain stuck in the economic ditch that they are in forever.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/20/60minutes/main2830058.shtml

The Digital Divide in Haiti

In class we talked about how western countries whose economies thrive off of information and communication technologies, have begun to bridge the “digital divide” in less developed countries such as the south. Businesses, governments and non-profit organizations alike are helping these underdeveloped countries by introducing technologies in order to advance their economies. However, although this may look on the outside like self-less good deeds, the poorer countries are not the only ones benefitting. With more advanced technologies being introduced they will be introduced to a larger market, which would increase productive manufacturing (such as the outsourcing of cheap labor) for more industrial countries as well.

After reading about this mutual gain from bridging the digital divide, it got me thinking about all the other kinds of groups that could benefit from helping under-developed countries, not only in the business and economic market. Specifically, the recent devastation in Haiti. Through technologies, in America we have been able to collect massive amounts of money to donate to the efforts. People can text certain numbers which will donate money from their phone, they can tweet to specific groups how much they would like to donate, and they can donate money from their online banking accounts straight to a charity. It makes you wonder that if Haiti was as progressed as we are, they might be able to do a lot more for themselves, as well as saved a lot of lives.

There are hundreds of non-profit charities or “civil societies” that are helping to collect money in the US. While this is definitely a good thing in regard to all of the help Haiti is getting, it is hard not to question the people associated with these charities, and like the businesses who seem to be a doing a good thing by helping underdeveloped countries modernize themselves, Haiti may not be the only one benefitting from this help. For Example George Clooney’s recent telethon event in which all proceeds went to Haiti, involved numerous celebrities and was said to have bridged the digital divide. However, in a world where your public persona plays a large role in your job, one might question the real motives that all of these celebrities had by going on TV and pleading for people to donate. Personally, I don’t think it really matters because of all of the money they collected which helped the Haiti efforts tremendously. However, the celebrities were gaining publicity and the TV stations were getting millions of viewers because of the celebrities, so in the end, I guess it is ok that everyone benefits. These people may be doing good for now, but if we had helped Haiti to advance their technologies sooner, we might not have had to do all of this in the first place.

Who has the upper hand?

This past week in class, there has been a lot of discussion regarding personalization and specifically whether it is more useful to be able to personalize your college education or to conform to the university standard of what your education should consist of. Should the university modernize itself and learn to cater to each students needs? Or should each student follow the conventional well-rounded education that is customary for everyone? Personally, I think there are pros and cons to each aspect of this situation. In the Tapscott article, he talks about how the University is stuck in the age of the “baby boomers” and that the new generation learns differently. I don’t necessarily agree with this viewpoint, and I think he underestimates the importance of the teacher/student relationship. If universities were to adopt a more interactive way of learning, in which the student discovers for themselves, what is the point of the teacher other than to spark discussions. Students want to learn, but more importantly they want guidance and structure. I think there can be a healthy balance between interactive learning in a way that interests students and lecturing. I also think it is important for each student to make the decision for themselves on whether or not they want to be able to personalize every aspect of their education. Ultimately, they are the consumers in the situation and the university is selling itself to them. However, once you choose a university, it is important to stick to its guidelines. If you don’t like that a certain school has a philosophy requirement and don’t feel that you need that in your future, then don’t choose that school. Overall, I don’t think the university should conform to any modern standards. I think there are enough universities out there that have the option to personalize, and it is the students job to decide what they want.