30 Minute Vacation

The perfect weather is the only thing that can make the courtyard of the international center even better than it already is.  I was so glad that I chose this place to relax and take a much needed break.  As I sat there it was like being transported somewhere else.  I love the way the breeze flows through that area just a little stronger than anywhere else.  When I closed my eyes I could pretend that the streams of water falling through the fountain were waves coming to shore.  The voices of students sitting around enjoying an outdoor dinner on this beautiful evening turned into the sounds of people laughing on the beach.  Perhaps I'm just a little too ready for summer.

Nevertheless, it was nice to take a chance to appreciate the beauty of this campus.  Before I was student here, I used to come visit campus and just gaze in wonder at how perfect everything looked.  Now that I'm nearing the end of my first year here, I don't often look at campus in this light anymore.  I've gotten used to it.  Maybe I'm just too distracted by all of the other things I have to do.  I'm glad I got to stop and enjoy it again the way I would have a year ago.  It's good to be here.

I think that is what makes this world far more real than any online space ever could be.  I could never get the feeling of peace or the overall sense of contentment that I get from relaxing outside on a beautiful day from an online space.  Staring into a screen will never free my mind the way that the natural world does.  This world is what is natural to us.  Online space is a construct.  What we call the "real world" is real because it's the first thing that any human knows.  For all of its faults, it is the most pure.  It's the most true.  It will always be the place that we return to.  It is real simply because we know it to be real.  We accept its reality as a basic part of our lives.  I don't think an online space could ever offer us the same authenticity.  No matter how complex or immersive online spaces become, they can, at best, only mimic the natural world.  We will always know in our minds, I least I hope we will always know, that online spaces are a human created construct.  An imperfect alternative to the natural world.

In terms of the class, I enjoyed the first sections of the course the most.  Learning about the history of communications industries, talking about the ways in which we interact with technology and how it shapes our lives was very interesting.  I think those are the types of concepts and discussions that are helpful to understanding the technological world in which we live.  I found the later material on artificial intelligence and virtual worlds less interesting.  While it was good to include in the course, I felt that we focused on it too much.  Sometimes I felt like the later parts of the course became very abstract and speculative.  As someone who came into the class with little knowledge of technology other than the what I use in my everyday experience, these later concepts became difficult to grasp.  While they definitely challenged a lot of what the class accepts about the world and our use of technology (and for this purpose I thought they were useful), I just wish we had spent more time talking about concrete uses and effects of technology.  I'm really glad we had to blog for this course.  I'd never done it before and I think it's one of the best skills that I'll take away from the course.

Exodus?

As a make my way through Edward Castronova's Exodus to the Virtual World, I become more and more skeptical of his claims with every page turn. 

I have a problem with his base claim that a migration to virtual worlds is going to happen on a large scale over the next few decades.  I honestly don't ever see myself becoming that immersed in a virtual world and I sincerely hope that younger generations don't either.  While I think that it is possible that virtual worlds could become more prevalent, I doubt that they will take over to the extent that Castronova predicts.

If such a migration were to occur I think it would mean terrible things for human interaction.  Online interaction is inherently more shallow than real-world conversations.  Physical proximity to others makes interactions more personal and relationships stronger.  I can't imagine developing or maintaining substantial connections through the filter of a screen.

Another main assertion of Castronova that I also reject is the implications of game policy and development for actual public policy.  Castronova presented this topic as if the connections between the two were obvious and undeniable.  However, I think his claims are idealistic and doubt they hold any ground in the development of real public policy. 

Virtual worlds are far more simplified and controlled than the real world.  Castronova admits this in another section of the book but does not address it in his discussion of policy.  Game designers have far more power to control and structure environments than real world governments ever will.  It seemed to me that most of the policy designs used by game developers that Castronova highlighted would not transfer effectively to the real world.  In fact, I thought that most of them, if they were even able to be instituted, would be terrible for real public policy.  I am interested to read the third section of the book, "How the Exodus Affects the Real World", in the hopes that some of my questions will be addressed.

Castronova calls his book a work of "speculative nonfiction" and I think it will remain purely speculation.  The claims that Castronova makes seem far-fetched and unrealistic.  Clearly, Castronova believes that an exodus is inevitable but I don't think so.  I hope I'm right.

Project 3 Final: Click a Mouse. Change the World?

In the past few years, the Internet, especially social networking, has become a powerful tool for social change activists.  Due to its widespread and pervasive nature, the world wide web may seem like the ideal space for organizing campaigns or generating interest.  Certainly, when used properly, social networking sites can help generate buzz for a cause.  However, digital activism is not always as effective as one may think.  This is especially obvious in social media campaigns concentrated in the United States.  Due to the nature of social networking sites and the United States' media culture, social media has not been effectively used to create digital activism campaigns which produce long-term, substantial results.  In this paper I will: examine how the fast-paced, crisis oriented nature of the U.S. media does not allow for sustained problem-solving, explain the shallow nature of many digital awareness campaigns, explain how even well-designed digital activism campaigns are not sustainable and examine why social media as a tool for activism seems to be working better for foreign countries.

An introduction to online activism created by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

The United States media culture including social networking sites are formatted in a way that sensationalizes problems for a short period of time which affects the way people think about activism.  Rather than leading the public to examine the roots of problems and contemplate how to make substantial change, the media culture encourages the public to perceive events as crises on which attention is focused for an extremely short period of time before the media moves on to a new crisis.  This approach does not allow a widespread public audience to think about problems in a rational manner that could lead to progress.  In The Atlantic article, "Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media", James Fallows refers to this phenomenon as the emergence of "infotainment" which focuses on giving the public the news they when they want it rather than the news that may be most important (1-2).  This leads the media (and the public) to focus on the scandals that are happening in the moment rather than the long term problems.

The emergence of the Internet, especially social networking sites, has only amplified the shallow nature of news reporting.  The study "Your news in 140 characters: exploring the role of social media in journalism" illustrates the controversy over using sites such a Facebook and Twitter to report the news.  In part, the study concludes that due to the interactive nature of social media it could "create a richer news experience for the user" as compared to "traditional media outlets" which only have "one-way communication" (Stassen, 13).  However, it is difficult to tell whether or not this "richer experience" is actually happening.  The allotted 140 characters, little more than a headline, have to be used in an extremely effective manner in order to entice people to quit scrolling through their news feed, click on a link and actually read a full story.  Because sites like Facebook and Twitter were created for social rather than informational purposes, it is more difficult to get a person to stop and read a news story because they are not necessarily looking for news.  Therefore, if people do not actually read full stories this so-called "richer experience" may actually be a more shallow one.

The shallow nature of news reporting matters because it translates into shallow activism surrounding the problems presented in the media.  Rather than treating problems in a serious manner that deserve long-term substantial action, the public uses digital activism to frivolously promote a cause for an extremely short period of time.  This digital activism often takes one of two forms: either the entire campaign is ineffective or the campaign is effective in a widespread manner for only a short period of time.

The availability of news in just 140 characters has translated into the idea of promoting awareness in 140 characters.  Status updates are now seen as a way to raise awareness.  An example of a status awareness campaign that has been floating around Facebook the past few days appears here:

"All of us have a thousand wishes. To be thinner, to be bigger, have more money, have a cool car, a day off, a new phone, to date the person of your dreams. A cancer patient only has one wish, to kick cancer's ass. I know that 97% of you won't post this as your status, but my friends will be the 3% that do. In honor of someone who died, or is fighting cancer, or even had cancer, post this for at least one hour."

While that post is certainly a nice sentiment, it's not going to help find the cure for cancer.  Status campaigns of this sort tend to last a few days or maybe a couple weeks.  Much like the news media presents, they come and go as if these issues are ones that only need to be paid attention to every once in awhile.  Time Magazine commented on this phenomenon in an article about last year's Facebook breast cancer awareness campaign in which women were encouraged to provocatively post about where they like to keep their purse (i.e. "I like it on the floor").  This campaign, which was not the first of its kind, seemed "well-intentioned" but nonetheless "misguided" (Gibson, 1).  Campaigns such as these, which do not even overtly name their cause, are not going to result in any progress because they do not promote any real action.  The statuses were meant to start a conversation but instead turned into a game of inclusion (those who knew what they meant) and exclusion (those who had no idea the purpose of the statuses). Even when people are able to figure out what these statuses are promoting they still do not provide any link where one can donate to the cause or an event at which to volunteer. 

The Washinton Post article "Facebook's Easy Virtue" explains the presence of such campaigns as a way for people to feel good for promoting a cause without actually having to do anything substantial and questions whether posting statuses and joining online groups are merely pieces "of virtual flair that members [can] collect to show off their cultural sensitivity, their political awareness?" (Hesse, 1).   In this sense, digital activism becomes more about the individual than the cause they are meant to be supporting.  Such shallow activism is common on social networking sites.  Digiactive.org, a website dedicated to social media activism, has published an online guide to Facebook activism in which it identifies the pro and cons of this type of activism.  It states that "dedication levels" are often "opaque" saying that "the low barrier to entry means that group size does not necessarily indicate genuine interest" making it difficult to "target those who are actually going to act" (Schultz, 5).  Therefore, because there are not limits to who may join a group there is also very little, if any, expectations for those people who do join.  Low accountability often means that very few people actually do anything to promote or support the cause.  A study of moveon.org, a social media political campaign which did both online and offline action, has shown that only 15-20 percent of members ever attended actual events (Eaton, 11).  Even the online activism, such as e-petitions, had little effect due to the popularity of such campaigns which end up saturating "the e-mail inboxes of politicians" who face "competing demands" (10).  While the moveon.org campaign certainly saw some success, it was not as effective as it could have been because online activism is unable to hold group members accountable or guarantee attention from politicians.  Certainly, activists are more productive and politicians more attentive when they primarily meet with each other face to face because there are higher levels of accountability.

There are some social media campaigns which do see high levels of widespread success but they generally only garner this attention for a short time.  The mainstream public generally will lose interest in these campaigns long before the problems they address have actually been solved.  A recent example of this is the "It Gets Better" campaign which was started in response to the sudden press coverage of gay adolescents committing suicide.  The campaign is estimated to have led to the creation of over 10,000 videos in just two months (itgetsbetter.org).  It is difficult to measure the impact these videos actually had on gay teenagers viewing them but the response is nonetheless impressive.  However, this campaign, started in September 2010, has already fallen from the public consciousness.  The campaign continues for those invested in it in the form of videos, books, appearances by its founders and merchandise but the mainstream public is no longer paying attention.  Certainly, the problem of gay teen suicide existed long before the press coverage which led to this campaign and it is still exists now even though the public seems to have lost interest.  This once again suggests that the ever-changing news media largely dictates public interest in social issues and that people participate in these campaigns not because they are genuinely concerned but because it feels like the thing to do at that moment.

 

The first video for the It Gets Better Campaign created by the founder, Dan Savage, and his partner Terry.  It is estimated that they are now over 10,000 videos for the campaign which encourages gay adolescents to stick it out through the tough times because "it gets better."

Given the only mild success of social media campaigns concentrated in the United States it should be questioned why social networking as a means for activism seems to be working in other countries.  Countries going through revolution, like Egypt and Libya, have found social networking to be a great resource.  In The Atlantic article "North Korea's Digital Underground", Robert Boynton explains how, in a country where Internet access has been largely barred, people are using alternative media to connect and gather information in order to liberate themselves (1).  The success of these countries in using social media for activism can be attributed to two factors: the solidarity of their cause and the emphasis on real world action.  First, the social media campaigns in these countries seem to be inherently stronger because the dominant ones on which the media focuses promote revolutionary, political causes.  Because the governments of these countries tend to be so oppressive everyone feels a stake in this revolutionary action because the problem affects all of the citizens.  On the contrary, in the United States, the dominant social media campaigns tend to address niche interests (Social Media: Online Activism video).  This means that the multitude of social media campaigns in the U.S., while covering more causes, are also inherently more divided because they serve very specific interests that are unable to attract people in the same way.  A multitude of smaller causes are not going to appear to have as substantial of success as a cause which an entire population is supporting.  Second, the dominant social media campaigns in the United States, such as "It Gets Better", are focused entirely online whereas the dominant campaigns in other countries are used to organize real world action.  In its guide to online activism, digiactive.org names "real-world action" as one of its key steps assuming the "intent is to have a real impact" (Schultz, 7).  People in countries facing revolution use social media as a means to communicate and organize events such as protests.  It is easier to create relationships and spur change when people are physically acting.  The actual presence of a large group of people all supporting a single cause imposes more pressure on people in power to actually change things than a scattered group of online supporters.  Physical action also makes it easier to measure involvement, commitment and success of activism.

 

"Social Media: Online Activism" explains how social networking sites have led to the development of organizing around causes that serve a multitude of niche interests.

In the United States, social media is not being used effectively to create widespread digital activism campaigns which produce substantial results.  This is largely due to the nature of U.S. news media and the inherent restrictions of social networking sites.  It seems that the divisive nature of media and the limited scope of social networks do not encourage people to become fully engaged in meaningful causes for periods that will allow for significant progress.  Rather, digital activism in the United States has a more frivolous nature that is more focused on self-virtue than actual change.  This is not to say that all social media campaigns in the United States are doomed.  It seems, however, that the campaigns that have garnered the most attention have either produced little change, quickly faded out of public consciousness or both.  In order for social media campaigns to become more effective, the producers of them will have to find ways to make their causes relevant to the mainstream public for sustained periods of time as well as motivate people to act in the real world rather than simply the virtual one.  Social media can be a great tool for activists when it is used creatively to generate interest and spur positive change.

Bibliography 

Feed

A feed connected directly to the brain.  News, products, advertisements, messages constantly streaming in.  What would this do to us?  What would become of our minds, our relationships, our culture?  It is clear that the lives of the teens in Feed revolve entirely around this constant supply of information.  There are some things about them that I find extremely disturbing but I worry that the teens presented in the book are only a small exaggeration on what is already happening to us.

The characters in the book have to be constantly connected or their whole world seems to collapse.  They are entirely bored if they don't have the feed on and lots of other people around.  They use the feed to talk to people who are right next to them instead of just speaking to them.  They can access any information they want whenever they need to.

These uses of technology don't seem to be entirely different from our own.  The book is simply made more extreme by the fact that the characters are literally constantly connected.  But it seems that we too rarely spend time alone and are almost always connected in some way.  Sometimes I instant message people who are only across the hall simply because it is convenient. And it's easy enough for me to find the information I need on the Internet.

However, there are some bigger differences between us and the characters in Feed  that are even more troubling.  Everyone having constant access to information means that everyone is essentially on the same level.  If everyone has access to any information they wish whenever they wish does it mean that everyone is extremely intelligent or that intelligence is altogether irrelevant?  I would argue that intelligence is on the decline for the characters in the book.  It seems that the characters, completely dependent on their feeds, are less able to express their thoughts and communicate effectively.  They constantly search for words, shorten them or just omit them altogether.  Indeed, save for Violet, the characters don't even write.

Moreover, the constant information occupies so much of their mind that they seem to have trouble concentrating.  If they can't even think with a clear mind then of course they can't communicate or problem-solve properly.  Without ever getting a break from this incessant barrage they are unlikely to ever be able to critically think about anything.

The reality is Feed, while in some ways not so entirely different from our own, is certainly more troubling.  It will be interesting to see how the story plays out.  So far, it seems to be a cautionary tale about what our dependence on technology could lead to.

Project 3 Draft: Social Media for Social Change

In the past few years, the Internet, especially social networking, has become a powerful tool for social change activists.  Due to its widespread and pervasive nature, the world wide web may seem like the ideal space for organizing campaigns or generating interest.  Certainly, when used properly, social networking sites can help generate buzz for a cause.  However, digital activism is not always as effective as one may think.  This is especially obvious in social media campaigns concentrated in the United States.  Due to the nature of social networking sites and the United States' media culture, social media has not been effectively used to create digital activism campaigns which produce long-term, substantial results.  In this paper I will: examine how the fast-paced, crisis oriented nature of the U.S. media does not allow for sustained problem-solving, explain the shallow nature of many digital awareness campaigns, explain how even well-designed digital activism campaigns are not sustainable and examine why social media as a tool for activism seems to be working better for foreign countries.

The United States media culture including social networking sites are formatted in a way that sensationalizes problems for a short period of time which affects the way people think about activism.  Rather than leading the public to examine the roots of problems and contemplate how to make substantial change, the media culture encourages the public to perceive events as crises on which attention is focused for an extremely short period of time before the media moves on to a new crisis.  This approach does not allow a widespread public audience to think about problems in a rational manner that could lead to progress.  In The Atlantic article, "Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media", James Fallows refers to this phenomenon as the emergence of "infotainment" which focuses on giving the public the news they when they want it rather than the news that may be most important (1-2).  This leads the media (and the public) to focus on the scandals that are happening in the moment rather than the long term problems.

The emergence of the Internet, especially social networking sites, has only amplified the shallow nature of news reporting.  The study "Your news in 140 characters: exploring the role of social media in journalism" illustrates the controversy over using sites such a Facebook and Twitter to report the news.  In part, the study concludes that due to the interactive nature of social media it could "create a richer news experience for the user" as compared to "traditional media outlets" which only have "one-way communication" (Stassen, 13).  However, it is difficult to tell whether or not this "richer experience" is actually happening.  The allotted 140 characters, little more than a headline, have to be used in an extremely effective manner in order to entice people to quit scrolling through their news feed, click on a link and actually read a full story.  Because sites like Facebook and Twitter were created for social rather than informational purposes, it is more difficult to get a person to stop and read a news story because they are not necessarily looking for news.  Therefore, if people do not actually read full stories this so-called "richer experience" may actually be a more shallow one.

The shallow nature of news reporting matters because it translates into shallow activism surrounding the problems presented in the media.  Rather than treating problems in a serious manner that deserve long-term substantial action, the public uses digital activism to frivolously promote a cause for an extremely short period of time.  This digital activism often takes one of two forms: either the entire campaign is ineffective or the campaign is effective in a widespread manner for only a short period of time.

The availability of news in just 140 characters has translated into the idea of promoting awareness in 140 characters.  Status updates are now seen as a way to raise awareness.  An example of one that has been floating around Facebook the past few days:

"All of us have a thousand wishes. To be thinner, to be bigger, have more money, have a cool car, a day off, a new phone, to date the person of your dreams. A cancer patient only has one wish, to kick cancer's ass. I know that 97% of you won't post this as your status, but my friends will be the 3% that do. In honor of someone who died, or is fighting cancer, or even had cancer, post this for at least one hour."

While that post is certainly a nice sentiment, it's not going to help find the cure for cancer.  Status campaigns of this sort tend to last a few days or maybe a couple weeks.  Much like the news media presents, they come and go as if these issues are ones that only need to be paid attention to every once in awhile.  Time Magazine commented on this phenomenon in an article about last year's Facebook breast cancer awareness campaign in which women were encouraged to provocatively post about where they like to keep their purse (i.e. "I like it on the floor").  This campaign, which was not the first of its kind, seemed "well-intentioned" but nonetheless "misguided" (Gibson, 1).  Campaigns such as these, which do not even overtly name their cause, are not going to result in any progress because they do not promote any real action.  Even when people are able to figure out what these statuses are promoting they still do not provide any link where one can donate to the cause or an event at which to volunteer.

The Washinton Post article "Facebook's Easy Virtue" explains the presence of such campaigns as a way for people to feel good for promoting a cause without actually having to do anything substantial and questions whether posting statuses and joining online groups are merely pieces "of virtual flair that members [can] collect to show off their cultural sensitivity, their political awareness?" (Hesse, 1).   In this sense, digital activism becomes more about the individual than the cause they are meant to be supporting.  Such shallow activism is common on social networking sites.  Digiactive.org, a website dedicated to social media activism, has published an online guide to Facebook activism in which it identifies the pro and cons of this type of activism.  It states that "dedication levels" are often "opaque" saying that "the low barrier to entry means that group size does not necessarily indicate genuine interest" making it difficult to "target those who are actually going to act" (Schultz, 5).  Therefore, because there are not limits to who may join a group there is also very little, if any, expectations for those people who do join.  Low accountability often means that very few people actually do anything to promote or support the cause.  A study of moveon.org, a social media political campaign which did both online and offline action, has shown that only 15-20 percent of members ever attended actual events (Eaton, 11).  Even the online activism, such as e-petitions, had little effect due to the popularity of such campaigns which end up saturating "the e-mail inboxes of politicians" who face "competing demands" (10).  While the moveon.org campaign certainly saw some success, it was not as effective as it could have been because online activism is unable to hold group members accountable or guarantee attention from politicians.  Certainly, activists are more productive and politicians more attentive when they primarily meet with each other face to face because there are higher levels of accountability.

 There are some social media campaigns which do see high levels of widespread success but they generally only garner this attention for a short time.  The mainstream public generally will lose interest in these campaigns long before the problems they address have actually been solved.  A recent example of this is the "It Gets Better" campaign which was started in response to the sudden press coverage of gay adolescents committing suicide.  The campaign is estimated to have led to the creation of over 10,000 videos in just two months (itgetsbetter.org).  It is difficult to measure the impact these videos actually had on gay teenagers viewing them but the response is nonetheless impressive.  However, this campaign, started in September 2010, has already fallen from the public consciousness.  The campaign continues for those invested in it in the form of videos, books, appearances by its founders and merchandise but the mainstream public is no longer paying attention.  Certainly, the problem of gay teen suicide existed long before the press coverage which led to this campaign and it is still exists now even though the public seems to have lost interest.  This once again suggests that the ever-changing news media largely dictates public interest in social issues and that people participate in these campaigns not because they are genuinely concerned but because it feels like the thing to do at that moment.

Given the only mild success of social media campaigns concentrated in the United States it should be questioned why social networking as a means for activism seems to be working in other countries.  Countries going through revolution, like Egypt and Libya, have found social networking to be a great resource.  In The Atlantic article "North Korea's Digital Underground", Robert Boynton explains how, in a country where Internet access has been largely barred, people are using alternative media to connect and gather information in order to liberate themselves (1).  The success of these countries in using social media for activism can be attributed to two factors: the solidarity of their cause and the emphasis on real world action.  First, the social media campaigns in these countries seem to be inherently stronger because the dominant ones on which the media focuses promote revolutionary, political causes.  Because the governments of these countries tend to be so oppressive everyone feels a stake in this revolutionary action because the problem affects all of the citizens.  On the contrary, in the United States, the dominant social media campaigns tend to address niche interests (Social Media: Online Activism video).  This means that the multitude of social media campaigns in the U.S., while covering more causes, are also inherently more divided because they serve very specific interests that are unable to attract people in the same way.  A multitude of smaller causes are not going to appear to have as substantial of success as a cause which an entire population is supporting.  Second, the dominant social media campaigns in the United States, such as "It Gets Better", are focused entirely online whereas the dominant campaigns in other countries are used to organize real world action.  In its guide to online activism, digiactive.org names "real-world action" as one of its key steps assuming the "intent is to have a real impact" (Schultz, 7).  People in countries facing revolution use social media as a means to communicate and organize events such as protests.  It is easier to create relationships and spur change when people are physically acting.  The actual presence of a large group of people all supporting a single cause imposes more pressure on people in power to actually change things than a scattered group of online supporters.  Physical action also makes it easier to measure involvement, commitment and success of activism.

In the United States, social media is not being used effectively to create widespread digital activism campaigns which produce substantial results.  This is largely due to the nature of U.S. news media and the inherent restrictions of social networking sites.  It seems that the divisive nature of media and the limited scope of social networks do not encourage people to become fully engaged in meaningful causes for periods that will allow for significant progress.  Rather, digital activism in the United States has a more frivolous nature that is more focused on self-virtue than actual change.  This is not to say that all social media campaigns in the United States are doomed.  It seems, however, that the campaigns that have garnered the most attention have either produced little change, quickly faded out of public consciousness or both.  In order for social media campaigns to become more effective, the producers of them will have to find ways to make their causes relevant to the mainstream public for sustained periods of time as well as motivate people to act in the real world rather than simply the virtual one.  Social media can be a great tool for activists when it is used creatively to generate interest and spur positive change.

What Is Real?

What is real?  This question kept coming up while a couple friends and I watched The Matrix over the weekend.  Not one of us had seen it before and we were driving ourselves crazy trying to figure out the various aspects of the movie and what it all meant or why things were certain ways.  At some point, after trying to explain things to each other became too frustrating we finally just decided to comfort ourselves saying "it's only a movie!"

Within the context of the movie it's easy to take that escape but The Matrix raises larger questions.  Not just what is real in the movie but what is actually real in the world?  What if everything you thought was true turned out to be completely fake?  The movie frames this question by providing a red pill which will reveal the terrifying truth and a blue pill which will allow a person to continue their dream existence is blissful ignorance.  Of course, Neo chooses the red pill; it wouldn't be much of a movie if he didn't.  But I don't think I would have done the same.

The blue pill seems far more appealing to me.  Not simply because it would allow me to continue on in the life I know but because I have a different definition of real.  Rather than "real" being something that is externally and objectively defined, I think that humans actively define our own reality.  The first definition of real would probably lead a person to the red pill but the latter leads me to the blue pill.  If my existence is constituted by a so-called dream world then so be it.  That dream world is real enough to me.  It is everything I know, it is how I have defined my existence and who I am.  The problems in this dream world are the ones that concern me and I am content to live my life in that world because it is what is real to me.

Moreover, if we constantly question our existence how long will it take before we drive ourselves crazy?  I mean, just watching the movie was frustrating enough to my friends and me.  To always be wondering if there is something else controlling us or something more real or powerful out there is too much for me to take.  The questions are simply too big and probably unanswerable.  Sure, it's cool to think about every once in while but soon enough I just have to force myself to stop because it's too much to think about.  I think it's more productive and realistic to concern ourselves with the existence we have been given and define ourselves and our actions based on what we know to be true in our own lives.

I do, however, see the rationale behind the red pill.  How are we supposed to solve anything or improve our lives if we don't ask the big questions?  Just from watching the first movie in the series it seems that a willingness to address the bigger problems may lead to a better or at least more true (by the first definition) existence for everyone.  It is certainly a noble thing to do and a tough fight.  It seems that how we interpret the problems that the movie presents largely comes down to how we each determine what is "real'.

Project 3 Proposal: Social Media for Social Change

For project 3 I plan to research how social media is being used to redefine traditional ideas about activism for social and political justice.  I am especially interested in how social networking sites such as facebook and twitter are being used to raise awareness around issues and how (or if) they motivate people to take action.  Due to the relevance that these sites have come to have in our lives and as someone who is interested in social justice activism I think it is important to explore the connections between the two. 

While I think that these sites probably have a strong ability to organize people and bring them together for the purposes of physical activism I am skeptical as to whether or not this is the way they are being dominantly used.  Sometimes I look down my own facebook feed and it seems that people think clicking a mouse is activism in and of itself as if changing your profile picture to a logo or "liking" an organization is actually helping anybody.  I worry that, instead of inspiring people to work for social change, social networking sites are holding people to a lower standard as to what constitutes activism. 

Therefore, I am questioning how social networking sites can be used to create actual change.  What implications does this have for the future of activism?  Does it change the definition of activism?  Is there any way that activism can be centrally focused online (without physical action) and still be effective?  While there seemed to be plenty of news articles and popular discussion on this topic, I had trouble finding academic articles that specifically addressed the connections between activism and social networking sites when searching through the databases listed on our course guide.  I found several that addressed online activism and organization but not in the specific context I was looking for.

Aaker, Jennifer. The Dragonfly Effect.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Aaker's book is advertised as a handbook for social change through social media.  She highlights how different corporate, political, and social organizations utilize social media in order to create a community that works for the social good.  I plan to use this source as a way of looking specifically at how online resources can be used most effectively as activism toward a socially just end. 


Berkman Center for Internet and Society.  "The New Change-Makers: An Introduction to Digital Activism." youtube.com. youtube. 23 June 2008. Web Video. 14 March 2011.

Published by the Berkman Center at Harvard University, this video interviews several different people currently involved in different types of online activism through social media.  They highlight why it is an effective strategy and give advice for how to use it.  The video is formatted and cut in an easily understandable way that highlights the role of the internet in modern activism.  I think it would be a useful piece of media to embed within the project.

 Calabrese, Andrew. "Virtual Nonviolence?" Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media. 6.5 (2004): 326-338. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 March 2011.

Calabrese questions whether or not the traditional idea of civil disobedience can be translated into the online realm.  The article looks at how things such as hacking could be used to protest within the online realm.  Instead of using the internet simply as an organizing tool for physical activism, this article looks at how activism could be turning into something entirely electronic.  I think this is important for a discussion of if and how activism could fundamentally be redefined by the internet.

Eaton, Marc. "Manufacturing Community in an Online Activist Organization." Information, Communication and Society. 13.2 (2010): 174-192. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 March 2011.

Eaton's case study of moveon.org, which focuses in on political activism, allows him to see how organizations create online communities and then motivate the members of those communities into action.  He also looks at how the internet lets activists make things happen faster and on a wider level than ever before.  This article could be useful in discussions of both how the internet is effective in activism and how it has changed our sense of activism.

"Guide: Introduction to Facebook Activism." digiactive.org. digiactive, 28 June 2008. Web. 14 March 2011.

This guide published on digiactive.org is a simple layout of social networking as a means of organizing.  It lists pros and cons of online activism, gives advice and steps and looks at current social media campaigns.  I like this guide because it is accessible to everyone.  I may take some points from this guide for my project but if not I will probably still provide a link for it because it is useful in understanding basic points.
 
Hesse, Monica. "Facebook's Easy Virtue." Washington Post, 2 July 2009. Web. 14 March 2011.

This Washington Post article examines my question of how the majority of people actually engage with online activism.  Are they doing anything in the real world or simply clicking?  It takes examples of several popular facebook campaigns and asks users how they participated in these campaigns and what they thought about it.  This article will be useful in a discussion of whether or not the internet is being used for activism in the best way possible or if the standards are too low.

Finding A Balance

Recently, in class, we have been exposed to the works and ideas of several people who resist the pervasiveness of technology in modern culture in order question its effect on us.  Instead of immediately engaging with new technologies with excitement, people such as Sven Birkerts and Ted Kaczynski view emerging technology with an eye of skepticism.  Resistance occurs in varying degrees.  While Birkerts leaves some room for the benefits of technology and hesitatingly embraces it, Kaczynski denounces modern technology in its entirety and wishes to overthrow it.

While I may not always agree with these widespread denouncements of technology I think they bring up an interesting point.  It's easy for us to get caught up in the glamour of owning fancy new gadgets and we don't often stop to think about how they affect our daily lives.  My cell phone is always attached to my hip and I'm on the internet (generally doing something unproductive) quite often.  I rarely stop to think about these things.  Like most people I know, they are just a part of my daily existence. 

It's tough to imagine not being constantly connected though I wonder if it's really necessary.  Leaving my phone in my room for the day, for example, can be liberating but at the same time causes anxiety; what if I'm missing something?  I spent this past weekend at my sister's house realizing with dread when I got there that her wireless internet still wasn't working.  I spent my time there without facebook or email (because really? a wired connection? not going there) which, while annoying at times, also meant I spent my extra time reading a book for class instead of mindlessly surfing the web.

This leads me to believe that extremes in either direction are not the way to go.  While Birkerts' and Kaczynski's ability to resist technology is quite impressive I don't think it's the best solution.  I also don't think one should feel the need to be constantly connected.  For me, the best way to approach technology and connectivity is through moderation.  Don't completely resist it but don't be a slave to it either.  Especially considering that technology can also be used toward productive ends, I think it's important to find a balance in our use of it.  Enjoy it because its fun, use it in productive and convenient ways, and step away every once in a while. 

The Internet vs. the Private Self

Sven Birkerts is extremely wary of the effects that modern technology is having on our lives.  He has opened up a little bit over the years but as technology continues to become ever more integral to our everyday existence his old worries surely remain intact.  One of the central points Birkets raised in "Into the Electronic Millennium" is that technology causes a "waning of the private self."

The notion of losing one's private identity due to technology is probably even more true today than it was when Birkets first wrote his piece.  This is likely what Birkets would criticize the most about our current use of the internet.  The internet is so pervasive that it causes us to be connected to each other almost constantly.

We not only access the internet on our computers but also on our phones, ipods and other portable devices.  The most popular websites tend to be ones like facebook and twitter which make communication quick and easy.  At any given moment there are likely a multitude of different devices surrounding us that will connect us to anyone we know.

Birkets believes that so much technology means that we lose time to reflect on ourselves; a crucial aspect of the meaningful individual.  He described the danger of a growing technological world when he stated that "the expansion of electronic options is always at the cost of contractions in the private sphere."  The aspect of technology is our lives has definitely grown exponentially since Birkets wrote that.  The private self may have already diminished far more than Birkets could have imagined at the time.

Our constant, sometimes addictive use of the internet and communications devices probably frightens Birkets most of all.

Project 2 Final: Monopolize Our Minds

William Gibson, in his 1984 novel Neuromancer, imagined an alternate hallucinatory world, an open "cyberspace" defended by the likes of the creative and talented people who helped build it (4).  However, as Tim Wu illustrates in his book The Master Switch, it can be extremely difficult for the innovators of a technology to keep control of it in the face of powerful corporations.  In an economy largely run by major conglomerates, especially when it comes to information industries, it is questionable whether or not a future like the one Gibson presents is even possible.  The Internet, arguably the broadest information technology to date, would be a major source of both money and influence for large companies were they to control it.  Moreover, Gibson's vision of cyberspace is far too limited in form and user base to be accessed as widely or to be as influential as the Internet is today.

It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them.  Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory" to create the telephone (18).  It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication.  Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.

Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it.  They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power.  Take, for instance, the development of FM radio.  Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128).  But FM was too good.  Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).

Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests.  Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor.  When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor, Edwin Armstrong, assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor.  They were right.  RCA, denying that Armstrong had even invented the technology, won the lawsuit.  Shortly thereafter, Armstrong ended his life (134).

This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely.  Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence.  It is unlikely that the Internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule.  If anything, the fight to control the Internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet.   It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something.  The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most individuals to successfully fight.

Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the Internet for regulation of content.  Because the Internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high.  Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control over the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power.  However, a completely open Internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies or governments as disruptive technologies tend to be.

Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well.  In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118).  The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115).  Films, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see.  Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode of free and creative expression.  This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition. 

Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities.  As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan.  This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content.  Free reign over the Internet is threatening to the businesses or governmental regimes whose practices are not always the most noble.  When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these organizations at serious risk.  In some countries, such as China, Internet censorship already exists.  The Chinese government controls what content citizens see in order to shape their opinions and prevent dissent.  Companies and other powerful organizations will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure they maintain power by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access. 

Even if certain content is not completely outlawed, companies may be able to control who is able to access what content.  So far, such controls are being implemented with little problem but it could be a slippery slope.  The current film rating system (G, PG, R, X), which was instituted in 1968, allows for the creation of content that would have once been deemed entirely inappropriate to be released for selected audiences (Wu 166).  The rating system works because it is mainly a set of guidelines that leaves the ultimate decision about what films to view up to individuals or, in the case of minors, up to the parents.  An open network is maintained with the addition of warnings about types of content.  This system of ratings and parental controls has been adapted to television and video games as well.  It is also starting to be used on the Internet.  While a mix of freedom and regulation seems to be working for multiple forms of content so far, it is important to realize that companies hungry for control and with the means to seize it will generally have no qualms about doing so.  To prevent it from tipping toward systematic control over who may view what content, this balance between free reign and control must be diligently protected.

Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits Internet access to a few talented professionals.  Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6).  Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user.  Gibson's Internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology.  Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting.  Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel.  The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others.  Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.

In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience.  Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this.  Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways.  Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it.  In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies.  If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.

However, the interface that we have today reaches across the industrialized world to a widespread set of users everyday.  This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital.  Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience.  It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.

It could be argued that the Internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate.  The Internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170).  This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way.  However, because the scope and influence of the Internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control.  Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of Internet control will continue to be a heated debate.  But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.

Works Cited:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.

UR Students and Gamers; More Alike Than We Think.

After reading Julian Dibbel's Play Money and watching the documentary Second Skin, both  of which serve as a peek into the world of online gaming, my class did a short writing exercise about how UR students are different from (obsessive) gamers.  The differences, such as significance of family and social relationships or moderation of time, aren't tough to see.  But it got me thinking; how are we alike?

My immediate thought is the concept of the "bubble."  Gamers, especially those portrayed in Second Skin, became almost complete recluses.  They confined themselves entirely to the online gaming world and only left the screen long enough to perhaps go to work.  The most significant part of their lives was the game and the relationships within the game.

I can't help but see a parallel to UR which is often even referred to as "the bubble."  Much as in online games, its easy to get caught up in campus life and forget about the outside world.  While we may have more "real life" interaction than obsessive gamers, our interactions are generally among the same people.  Everyone on campus shares a significant aspect of their current lives, their university, in common with everyone else on campus, much in the way that the gamers of Second Skin share a common and time-consuming hobby.

Nearly all of my time at UR is spent doing things meant to enhance my college experience and increase my opportunities in the future.  So basically, if I'm not doing homework I'm at community service, if I'm not at community service I'm at work and if I'm not at work I'm doing homework.  See the endless cycle?  Any extra time I do have is spent hanging out with my friends here.  It's a very detached existence.  I don't keep up with the news while I'm here, I call my family only once every couple weeks and I've barely talked to my friends from home (who are just as busy as me) since I came back from winter break.

Obsessive gamers are the same way.  The vast majority of their time and effort is put into their game of choice so that they can improve their standings.  Their most significant social relationships or at least the ones to which they devote the most time are with other players.  Things outside the game, which may have once held more significance, fall by the wayside.

The reality of these commonalities between UR students and obsessive gamers is a little scary to me.  It makes me want to make extra effort to step outside "the bubble" from time to time.  But like I said, its very easy to get caught up in it all and time starts to go by faster than I even realize.  It seems to me that UR is my game of choice.

Work, Play, Money and Meaning

Here at Richmond, I usually feel like I need to be doing something productive every second of every minute of every day.  I start to feel anxious if I take a break for too long or get stuck for ideas.  If I go to bed before 3:00AM or sleep in too late I feel guilty.  If I'm not doing schoolwork it better be because I'm in class, at a meeting, at work or doing community service.  There's never a moment when my work is finished so I feel the need to be perpetually working. 

This is exactly the type of overworked culture that Julian Dibbell challenges throughout Play Money.  He states that the Protestant Ethic helped create a material emphasis where efficiency is valued "as an end it itself" and we are encouraged "to acquire as much wealth as possible and enjoy it as little as possible" (61).  In a sense, we should work ourselves to death because it's the only thing that is viewed as worthwhile.

Perhaps that type of value set is why I was immediately disturbed when Dibbell started talking about not only playing a computer game incessantly but also investing money in it as if  it were actually a worthwhile pursuit.  The idea seemed completely ridiculous and extremely self-indulgent.  Indeed, Dibbell points out that we often view play as a distraction that wastes time that could be spent on more productive activities (58). 

Dibbel, however, seems to believe that when money can be earned through play it blurs the lines between play and work.  It turns play into a legitimate economic pursuit.  This blurring of the lines is the idea behind a piece of advice I've heard countless times; figure out what you love to do and find a way to get paid to do it.  As far as this idea extends to real world pursuits and creates happy citizens I think it's good advice.  But a computer game?  I'm still having trouble accepting that as a meaningful way to spend the majority of one's time.

I understand that the pursuit of online gaming has the possibility of becoming an economically lucrative undertaking.  But I can't escape the idea that working should be about more than just making money.  No matter how you spin it, an online game is essentially an individual activity.  There may be some kind of virtual interaction but there are no concrete consequences other than those tied to money.  For work to truly mean something and be worthy of my time, I want to know that it is not only enjoyable to me but also improves the lives of those around me.  I need to be creating a positive effect on the world around me.  Anything that is simply of benefit to me wouldn't be fulfilling enough.

In order to relieve the stress of our overworked culture I think it's necessary to value play and enjoyable activities more.  When play and work can be combined into meaningful pursuits that is also something to be valued.  However, spending the majority of one's time on an activity that is simple self-indulgence thinly veiled behind monetary pursuits is something that I can't take seriously.

Project 2: Monopolize Our Minds

Gibson, in his 1984 novel Neuromancer, imagined an alternate hallucinatory world, an open "cyberspace," defended by the likes of the creative and talented people who helped build it (4).  However, as Wu illustrates in his book The Master Switch, it can be extremely difficult for the innovators of a technology to keep control of it in the face of powerful corporations.  In an economy largely run by major conglomerates, especially when it comes to information industries, it is questionable whether or not a future like the one Gibson presents is even possible.

It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them.  Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory," to create the telephone (18).  It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication.  Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.

Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it.  They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power.  Take, for instance, the development of FM radio.  Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128).  But FM was too good.  Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until RCA was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).

Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests.  Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor.  When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor (134). 

This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely.  Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence.  It is unlikely that the internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule.  If anything, the fight to control the internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet.   It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something.  The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most any individual to successfully fight.

Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the internet for control over content.  Because the internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high.  Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control on the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power.  However, a completely open internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies as disruptive technologies tend to be.

Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well.  In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118).  The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115).  Movies, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see.  Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode free and creative expression.  This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition.

Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities.  As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan.  This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content.  Free reign on the internet is threatening to the businesses whose practices are not always the most noble.  When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these companies at serious risk.  Companies will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure that this doesn't happen by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access.

Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits internet access to a few talented professionals.  Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6).  Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user.  Gibson's internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology.  Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting.  Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel.  The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others.  Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.

In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience.  Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this.  Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways.  Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it.  In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies.  If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.

However, the interface that we have today reaches across the globe to a widespread set of users everyday.  This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital.  Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience.  It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.

It could be argued that the internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate.  The internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170).  This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way.  However, because the scope and influence of the internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control.  Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of internet control will continue to be a heated debate.  But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.

Sources:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.

Facebook: Not just a Procrastination Technique

Facebook.  Cell phones.  Texting.  Twitter.  Our modern world is teeming with different modes of electronic communication.  Most people, like myself, probably use a multitude of these methods every day without thinking about it.  But how dependent are we on them?  How much time do we spend using them everyday?

In an attempt to get some idea, I looked at my own Facebook usage for a day.  There's no doubt that Facebook is the website that I spend the most time on and the easiest way for me to communicate with others.  Now that I'm in college, far away from my friends and family and with terrible cell service on campus, facebook has become the most convenient way to communicate with people back home and at other schools.

The other day, several of my friends from home wrote on my Facebook wall to ask where the heck I have been.  This semester has been super busy so far and I haven't talked to them since I left home last month.  I was able to quickly reply to them in a comment that I was sorry and we should talk soon.  With our busy lives and mismatched schedules Facebook allows us to leave messages for each other which we can reply to at our own convenience.

Facebook also allows for less direct communication.  A simple status update goes out to a community at large.  Though it's not the most direct or ideal way to communicate it's better than nothing.  Facebook allows me to feel like I know what's going on in the lives of my friends and family even though I may only be able to call them every few weeks.

That's what I find myself doing most of the time on Facebook; scrolling through my news feed for status updates, news stories from the sources I "like" and campus events.  I would say that the majority of the time I spend on Facebook is not to communicate with any specific people but rather just to see what's going on.  There's always something new posted so Facebook is where I turn when I'm bored or need a break from homework.  Every time I open up Firefox, I immediately go to Facebook as if on auto pilot.  Even when I get online to do something totally different, Facebook is inevitably where I end up.  The amount of time I spend on it varies depending on what I'm doing, my schedule for the day and my workload but there isn't a day I go without Facebook.  Now that I have it I can't imagine my life without it.

To be sure, that type of use of social networking is more passive and casual than direct and communicative.  I think that's why the internet has developed as it has rather than becoming a "consensual hallucination" like in Gibson's matrix.  As it is, I can get online anytime I want for any amount of time I want whether it be a few seconds before I run to class or for 30 minutes when I don't want to do my homework.  In a matrix like Gibson's this type of casual use would not be possible.  The very notion of having to "jack in" requires thought, time and equipment that aren't always available.  Everyday use of the internet would likely be drastically altered if this type of planning were necessary every time we wanted to use it.  If internet use were that formal I think it would be more accessible to professionals in the workplace than to daily home lives.  To enter the matrix I would have to commit to it more than I have to when I jump online for a minute to check what my friends are up to.

Human, Machine or Both?

"'Numb,' he said.  He'd been numb a long time, years.  All his nights down Ninsei, his nights with Linda, numb in bed and numb at the cold sweating center of every drug deal.  But now he'd found this warm thing, this chip of murder" (Gibson 152).

This is a possible danger of too much advanced technology.  The chance of becoming completely numb, devoid of the emotions that make us human.  When our machines take over too many facets of our lives or when, as Gibson imagines in his novel Neuromancer, we merge with our machines we may lose the qualities that make us uniquely human.  We  risk becoming entirely dependent on our technology to the point that our lives lose meaning without it.

The technological future as Gibson imagined it has not yet come to fruition.  Cyberspace is not a physical place that we can actually enter.  We don't all insert different chips in our heads depending what task we are completing.  However, the technology we do have may have a similar effect on us as the technology in Neuromancer has on the novel's characters.

With things like facebook, twitter, endless news outlets, laptops, smartphones and new gadgets being introduced on the market all the time, it's easy for us to get lost in our technological world.  Ever notice how time seems to pass quicker when you're surfing the net?  It seems to me that as our technology advances we are becoming more engaged with our machines than with each other.  The human component of our lives becomes secondary and in Gibson's world it could be almost completely lost.  It's as if the world just turns cold.

At one point in the novel, Case actually begins to feel something.  It is stated that, "he sat on the bed for a long time, savoring the new thing, the treasure.  Rage" (145).  This moment of emotion is long overdue.  It is not only creates a sense of wonder for Case at this "warm thing" but as a reader I felt a sense of relief.  Case finally feels something proving that he must have some human capacity left in him.  Without that emotion, Case is little more than a machine disguised as a human.  He seems empty.

Gibson meant his book to be a warning of the bleak future that technology has the potential to create.  He should be taken seriously.  As vital and convenient as our technology is in our everyday lives, we should take a step back every once in awhile.  Detach ourselves from our machines and reclaim our humanity.

Is It Really That Simple?

In titling my posts, I've realized that I'm unintentionally starting to create a pattern.  They are all questions.  I'm starting to question everything I thought I knew about cyberspace.  The internet is not necessarily this vast open expanse that I thought it was or, if it is, it may not always be.  But I also have to question whether or not the internet should really be completely unregulated.  Whether it's really that simple.  Now, before anyone goes up in arms, let me explain.

While I was reading Lessig's Open Code and Open Societies and Barlow's A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, one major thought kept striking me over and over.  Both readings suggest that the internet needs to be a place of freedom, deregulation, expression and innovation.  For the most part I agree with this but I see one problem.  Contrary to what Barlow's style of writing suggests, the internet is not an entity unto itself.  The internet depends on humans.  Everything that the internet is was imagined, created and published by people.  People are not perfect.  People need reasonable constraints placed upon them.  These constraints serve a general good.

In fact, people already have some constraints placed upon them and I believe, in some situations, these constraints should also apply to the world of cyberspace.  Take Lessig's example of iCraveTV in Canada.  This site served to rebroadcast television shows via the internet without consenting the original broadcaster; a practice that is legal in Canada but not in the United States.  When the site did not sufficiently contain access to only Canadians, a lawsuit was issued in the United States.  Lessig suggests that such a process of "zoning cyberspace" based on geography is wrong because it will only lead to further control of the internet.

But what about U.S. television broadcasting networks and companies?  They clearly have rights over the shows they produce and the laws protecting those rights should be upheld even if it means placing constraints on cyberspace.  It is people that are logging on and gaining access to this content and it is other people who are being cheated out of proper distribution of their content.  People should be subject to the laws in place no matter the domain they affect.  Lessig would probably say that such shows, once they are aired, should become "public domain."  I'm not saying that this assertion is wrong but for the time being that is not the case and it has necessary consequences.

In general, I don't believe that most content, such as social sites, blogs and news need to be regulated on the internet.  However, if the distribution of certain content clearly violates existing laws and the rights of other people or companies then those distributing it illegally should be held accountable.  As laws vary between countries, this may sometimes make "zoning" practices necessary until the issue can be resolved.  The internet is still a new and evolving domain.  Until common practices and values are established around the world, these issues will continue to arise.  "Zoning" need not be a permanent solution, but for the time being it is the one we have.

Is the Internet the Exception?

Tim Wu's The Master Switch centers around his idea of 'the cycle' in modern information industries.  He spends the vast majority of the book providing clear evidence of how these industries, radio, telephone, television and film, have all gone through periods of both centralization and relative openness.  However, one question remains unanswered.  It is still unclear how the newest and most innovative communications technology, the internet, will be affected by the cycle.

The internet itself was constructed around the founding principles of openness and individual control.  Every user is to be able to use the internet in the way that best serves their needs, accessing whatever content they so choose.  Despite this built in notion of openness, it seems that the internet remains extremely vulnerable to companies hungry for control over the world's largest communications medium.  Indeed, Wu claims that "...even a technology as radical and powerful as the internet seems able at most to moderate but not to abolish," the inexorable cycle (289).

In trying to determine what may become of the internet in the future, the experiences of Google are interesting to examine.  Google owes much of its success to the fact that it was shaped in direct compliance with the idea of net neutrality.  As Wu points out, "it is the structure of the Internet, much less than anything particular to the firm itself, that keeps Google standing" (282).  It is developed from and its future depends upon an open network.  The vast, open network has endless amounts of information that Google was able to make easily accessible to all users.  However, because Google depends upon others so heavily, both for content and for the modes that allow it to reach people, it is extremely vulnerable to annihilation (282). 

If the structure of the internet began to change, if we threw away the openness that the founders of the internet envisioned, Google, our most popular internet search engine, would be in serious trouble.  The company has already had to begin to expand its offerings in order to protect itself and its ideals from being disrupted by those who do not necessarily value a fully open network.

As Apple Inc. has developed new flashy devices, essentially mobile computers that fit in your palm, it has also aligned itself with the television, movie, music and telephone industries to provide the content and services that it so chooses (292).  The goal of Apple is clearly to achieve "unrelenting control over [its] products and how they're used" (278).  Such massive partnerships, while they may provide excellent products and services, are not in keeping with the ideal of an entirely open network.  The customer may still have an illusion of individual control but in actuality the content and services that they can access are severely limited by the nature of the deals made between companies. 

These limitations of content and access are threatening, as noted, to Google's entire business model.  In 2007, Google developed the Android as an alternate operating system for telephones in order to attempt to move the "mobile world into territory that is friendly to Google rather than to its enemies" (294).  Android is distributed for free, as are the majority of Google's services, both as a necessity to ensure Google's future and to ingrain the ideal of open service back into the communication industry.  But should Google really have to spend its time developing new technologies just to protect itself?  Google is so successful because the company is built on one extremely useful service that it has been able to spend its time developing to its full potential (283).  It can be argued that if the company has to continue to develop new technologies just to stay afloat, rather than developing and releasing them on its own terms, then quality may suffer as its attention is forced to shift from its main purpose: internet search.  No matter what, if other companies continue to build partnerships, which Google has rarely done, then Google will be at a supreme disadvantage in the world of internet communications.

At this point, the internet could still go either way.  It is clear by the likes of Apple Inc. that a closed network is a definite possibility.  For now, and hopefully for the indefinite future, the internet remains a largely open network full of all the varieties of content one could imagine.  But, as Wu states, "however adapted to new forms and contexts" there is still a "human ambition to build and overthrow empires" (299).  It is unlikely that such hunger for control will cease to exist anytime soon meaning that the urge to control the internet will continue to be an enticing one.  And as we continue to increase our dependence on the internet as a mode of communication, information, entertainment and more, that urge will only get stronger.  If any company were ever able to exercise entire control over the internet they would hold an unprecedented amount of power in their hands, a frightening prospect to say the least.

 

Centralization? No Thanks.

This is my first blog.  Ever.  My initial worries about blogging are evident by the fact that I've spent the better part of an hour reading other blogs and nailing down my ideas despite the mountain of other work that I've got piled beside me.  However, I know that any insecurities I may have about blogging are self-imposed, that is, the responsibility I feel to write a well thought out piece of work is dictated by me, not the internet.  In actuality, the nature of the internet allows me to post just about anything no matter the quality or content.  No one else has to screen it first, give approval or endorse this post.  I simply have to click "Publish Post."  Such freedom of ideas is a luxury that, as Tim Wu's The Master Switch points out, has not historically been a central part of large information technology industries.

For the better part of the 20th century our most influential information and communication technologies were run by prominent monopolies with the power to decide what new ideas and therefore technologies the public got to see and when they would see them.

A device as simple as an answering machine, seen as a threat to the entire telephone industry, saw its development completely shut down by AT&T in the 1930s (106).  As is turns out, the answering machine is little more than a convenient add-on to the telephone and today the notion of it being threatening seems silly.  But we didn't learn that until the 1990s after the break-up of the telephone monopoly and 60 years after the device's original development.

FM Radio saw a similar, if less intense, stalemate.  But the chilling thing about FM Radio's development is not that it was halted for a time but that it still has never been developed to serve the full spectrum of capabilities that it could.  Armstrong, the developer of FM, proved its potential as a "multipurpose communications technology" rather than just radio (129).  The AT&T monopoly, who stopped FM's release until it had control over it, saw the technology as disruptive enough as it was without developing it further.

I was astonished the most when I read that even prototypes of high definition TV were being developed in the 30s and 40s though the public would not see the technology until the 21st century (151).  Such blatant controls over technological innovation by overbearing monopolies are startling in a society that is meant to value competition and individual merit.  The fact is, all of these technologies were developed by independent inventors toiling away alone but the nature of centralized industry did not allow them to release or receive credit for their work.  Their ideas and developments were squashed or stolen from them.

This history makes me wonder where we would be if the monopolies had remained as powerful as they were in the 20th century.  Would we have satellite radio? Caller ID? Cell Phones? Smartphones? TiVo?  It's tough to know.  We're lucky that the internet has not fallen victim to a single power.  The rapidly evolving uses of the internet are testament to the merits of a decentralized communication system.  In the virtual world their is always room for a new idea, a new website, a new game, a new form of communication.  The internet gives people the freedom to innovate and express themselves as they please which creates a more fulfilling, convenient, and fun experience for all of us who share in this ever-expanding network.