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.