Queen Among Men

Leave it up to me to find the most interesting point of the article to be simple human unpredictability, which Starr doesn’t actually mention till late in the article. The whole idea of the Sims has always bored me, why get involved in creating and managing fake computer peoples lives when my own life, my friends’ lives, and the world around me were always so much more interesting.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand the importance of simulation and how we can learn from it. Like Starr’s example of how simulations are being used to help revitalize urban communities and make decisions about government policies. The importance being that that because humanity is so unpredictable all you can do is try your best and hope that one of the simulation’s possibilities is correct. Our virtual government is virtual because it’s the best way to determine what might be the best course of action. We weigh options and possible outcomes every day, if I run across the Sheridan road right now chances are that the cars won’t hit me, we play a mini simulations in our mind to make sure before we make the dash. So why not play through different scenarios and simulations when making decisions that may affect whole cities and the entire country.

But the thing is we never really know.

Sure we can hypothesize and make our best guess, but in the end what makes life interesting, what makes life real, is the complete unpredictability of how any given situation may turn out. Yes, you can control on SimCity how different sectors are taxed and when to cut taxes or when to create major investments like an airport, but the truth is SimCity can never actually simulate real city life because it lacks real people and real reactions. So go ahead, simulate all you want. Then step away from your computer, pick up the newspaper and find out what’s actually going on in the world around you.

So 300 seconds of silence was a lot longer than expected.

I got home from my morning class, set my alarm, and just sat. And just as predicted the thoughts started rolling in. Thoughts about the class I had just been to, what else I needed to accomplish today, what to get my family for Christmas, why my heartbeat sounded so loud in my head, the lyrics to Sounds of Silence by Simon and Garfunkel, and when my 300 seconds of torture, I mean reflection would be over.

I eventually had to force myself to just stop and breathe. I accomplished this by staring at a spot on my wall, it gave me something to focus on but not think about. It was then that I started to notice all the things that my technology usually runs over, the sound of the wind rustling through the leaves, people talking out side, the sound of laughter, and again I started to listen again to my own heart beat. It was mesmerizing, and it was so much more alive than the whir of my computer. Beat after beat lulled me, I stopped trying to calculate how many more seconds I had to go and just drifted.

But then the alarm went off and technology (my alarm clock) came rushing back in. It was nice while it lasted and once I got used to it, not nearly as isolating or scary as some people might have made it sound like. If anything for 5 minutes it made me really stop and be open to the world around me as well as myself, and I doubt that a greater awareness can ever be bad. Maybe I’ll try to do this once a week, but knowing me I’ll probably forget unless I create a firefox reminder for it, and that would completely go against the purpose of it all. Oh well.

Jason Gallo is not that big of a mystery. And to find sites about him was actually pretty easy, I just used google and typed in his name using the quotation marks, “Jason Gallo.” I found both academic websites and sites about academia that housed Jason’s biographical and other information.

Into the blogosphere had a pretty detailed biography which told me that he’s originally from Washington D.C. and that he received a B.A. from the Colorado College and a M.A. from Georgetown University and has worked for both the U.S. and German postal services. It also discussed what he is currently studying here at NU as a Ph.D. student in the Media, Technology, and Society Program. His academic interests include surveillance, subcultures, the history of technology, and the increasing role of computer-mediated-communication in the political process. Jason is currently engaged in dissertation research on the U.S. government’s role in promoting the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science.

On another site I found an article about Gallo’s work with Professor Hargittai to test Sunstein’s “fragmentation hypothesis,” as we discussed in class this is was the study that looked to find out if top political blogs only linked to other similarly minded political blogs and websites. And finally I actually found an explanation of Gallo’s thesis from 2001 titled “Online Fight Club: Hooligan Use of Internet Technology to Create and Reinforce Identity in Cyberspace,” the thesis looked to examine “this institution as subculture, and ultimately the role that the Internet has played and continues to play in this community. The online hooligan community constitutes a unique model of online interaction, neither utopian nor dystopian, but rather an uncomfortable compromise between the two.”

While reading the article and chapters by Healy and Lessig the one idea that kept popping into my head was greed. Greed and money are often talked about as the root of all evil and I agree that they are, especially when it comes to online content and copyright law.

The point that I thought Healy most effectively demonstrated was the importance of careful regulation on each level of use. By considering that, “Outcome will be deeply affected by choices made at each level [infrastructure, social organizations, and individual users]; therefore there is value in making those choices self-conscious, careful and well informed,” one cannot help but to be baffled by decisions being made that cut off possibilities for the internet as a medium. The New York Times supreme court case is a prime example, the regulation and fee for archived articles gave me further reason to fuel my theory of greed. I thought that the Times was right in saying that the authors had already been paid for the articles and therefore archived articles should be free. If I were to go to any library with a decent periodicals section I’m sure that I could find the article for free rather than having to pay on NYtimes.com.

There are further benefits of free access highlighted by the chapters from Lessig’s book. Benefits include greater creativity such as the “Disney creativity.” As well as a new way of educating students and while encouraging them to be more “literate” in our video and media heavy world. And the internet could serve to make things more available to the average person, such as Eastman making photography a more widely available means of archiving. Throughout American history we have used what has come before us to improve and build upon and I don’t believe that just because something is creative in nature that the sharing should stop.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a theater major, if I star in a movie I want to get paid for that work. However, I think that copyright law has completely run over the fair use doctrine and the only reason I can see is greed. There is no reason that the estate of Margaret Mitchell needs to continue to have control over or receive funds from Gone With the Wind which in turns stifles new creative renditions associated with the novel. The line needs to be re-drawn or one of the greatest American traditions, the freedom to use and share ideas, might be lost in litigation.

I found the topic of recommendations between the Greenstein, Boyd and Resnick & Zeckhauser articles extremely interesting.

In the Greenstein article highlights how recommendations shape the internet as it continues to evolved. The example that is used is online e-cards first offered by bluemountain.com and how other companies adopt these applications, like I know that I use hallmark’s website to send e-cards. And like we’ve recently discussed how google like other search engines is beginning to offer other services which are more desirable such as e-mail. I think that these recommendations are extraordinarily important because not only do they shape what services are being offered but in a way it’s giving internet users what they want. The popularity of a service spreads until it becomes standard. Much like I spoke of in a previous post those things (blogs, movies, books, etc.) that receive the most recommendations become the most popular creating an unequal skew of what read and seen. In this case it’s almost the opposite, the popular services rather than driving traffic to one site actually spread to many.

The Boyd article speaks of recommendations for social connections. However I think that these recommendations are nearly as helpful as the services I previously spoke of. Applications such as friendster and facebook like the article states are extremely unreliable. Many people create social connections to further their network or create profiles that don’t fully encompass who they are because they are afraid of who might view the profile. So it is hard to vouch for other friends and even hard if you take into account friendsters. In this case it maybe the only time recommendations can’t be trusted on the internet.

Furthermore the Resnick & Zeckhauser examine the recommendations generated by reviews of buys and sellers on ebay. While is was thought that these recommendations might help to weed out the bad sellers/buyers or serve to boost prices of sales for sellers it did none of these things. Like the recommendations of social connections on Friendster the ebay feedback is highly misleading. Rather than telling the truth it’s often just highly positive which doesn’t serve as an accurate portrayal or recommendation of a seller/buyer.

Whether it be recommendations of services or of social connections they’re really all we have to go on when it comes to the internet. So as we move forward how do we weed through the recommendations. How to we separate the good from the bad? Maybe it’s just a matter of blind virtual trust.

Wednesday after class it happened. I found my inner nerd. I reached home to settle myself in front of the computer and I began downloading extensions, themes, and icons to customize my browser. (Mind you I had no idea what these things were before) As each new item popped up on my firefox I couldn’t help the spread of pure bliss accross my face. A good friend had stopped by to visit and as she sat there watching and shaking her head she sighed, “who knew you were such a closest nerd?” And it was then that I realized that I had accidentally let my love of and new knowledge of all things internet related slip.

In a world where we often try to cover sheer emotion, whether it be sadness or excitement. In a world where it’s “cooler” to be apathetic and show no signs to interest. I had stepped over the line and let loose, the giddy feeling I had while customizing my brower was only the start to uncovering my nerd self. Later that day I downloaded google earth and it has changed my life…or at least how I spend a lot of time while I’m on my computer. Again, I became so excited and obsessed with “flying” around the globe that I immediately made 3 of my friends download it, and even when so far as to profess my love of google earth in my away message on IM.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve probably always been a closest nerd. I get excited over advancements in technology, big or small, but I realized that it wasn’t until this class that I really decided to share my secret nerd self with the world. Not to mention this class has probably made me even more nerdier in the process. In the past 5 weeks I have started a blog, customized my browser, discovered things online and been exposed to more technological information than ever before, and the thing is I think it’s so cool, and I want other people to think so too. I’m spreading the good word and helping my friends be nerds along with me, even if they don’t act as excited as I do, I’m pretty sure they’re loving it too. Also, if I thought I used the internet a lot before, this is like a whole new spike in internet usage. I’m starting to search for all kinds of things and information, in lots of different ways, whether it be page specific or visually with Kartoo.

While I know that I’m certainly not the biggest nerd and that I am just learning a lot about the internet and technology in general I do have a feeling that this is the only the first sighting of my inner nerd, with many more to come.

That’s all for now, I have to go, my firefox is reminding me I need to do something else.

All men may be created equal but not all men receive an equal voice on the internet. While reading the articles by Introna & Nissenbaum and DiMaggio & Celeste’s I couldn’t help but notice a parallel between the inequality caused by search engines and by the spread of internet use.

This inequality is clearly depicted in Introna & Nissnbaum article when they explain how the search engines that have been developed promote the most popular and wealthy websites, and furthermore will sponsor websites if paid. It is completely unfair in a world full of websites that the attention should be programmed to go to the most popular. While I understand that these popular websites are usually the ones that garner the most pertinent information on a topic that doesn’t change the fact that it is a highly undemocratic system.

This undemocratic system can also be seen in the spread of the internet use across America. While I wasn’t surprised, I found the unequal spread of the internet to minorities and the poor fascinating. As explained by DiMaggio & Celeste’ article the study found that minorities, such as African Americans, and lower income, less educated people did not have access to the internet and therefore were not internet users as early as their more advantaged counterparts. Again this reinforces the divide between the races and classes. The internet in concept was thought of as a place where people would have equal access to information. This just proves that the people with privilege actually are the ones with the most access, leaving the poor uneducated minorities behind.

This parallel shows that those without power and money are not as able to be heard on the internet or as able to harness the information the internet possesses due to search engine bias or simply because they are not internet users. It also highlights just how unfair the perceived “equality” of the internet can be.

I thought that both the Hargittai and Ganley readings were prime examples of the power of technology and how it can be manipulated by those who possess it; as well as how technology affects expression and the power to spread a message.

The Hargittai reading drew some very interesting parallels between radio and the internet. The most amazing thing to me was how people first conceptualized the use of the radio and how far its actual use strayed from that hypothesized path. The fact that most people thought the radio would be used as another kind of telephone is baffling considering the broadcast medium we all tend to think of today. It really makes me wonder where internet use will migrate to in the future. I think that the way the radio evolved and was used should be looked at as a predictor as to how the internet might change and be shaped in the future. I don’t think that the internet will be as highly regulated as the radio but I do think that the internet has changed a lot since its original conception and will continue to change in the future; the question that remains is how it will change.

The question of freedom of speech and censorship is also tied closely to this issue of internet use. Right now it feels as though the internet is the ultimate forum for freedom of speech and expression, and I agree that it is the most available forum. The basis for the FCC and for censorship on radio and broadcast television is the scarcity of frequencies and therefore they began to be regulated, however there is no lack of space in cyber space. It will be interesting to see if in the future the government will try to exert more control over the internet. I think if the government does there will be a backlash of the masses that have become quite comfortable with their internet freedoms.

Freedom of expression was also very apparent in the Ganley reading especially with regards to freedom of political expression through different channels of technology. What Ganley sets up in her article is the amazing ways that technology is able to not only convey messages and information but also incite revolutions and uprisings. Whether it was videocassettes in the Philippines or fax machines and computer bulletin boards in China, the flexibility of modern technology to be so subversive was nothing short of impressive. It made me think back to the “internet Titanic” question posed in the Hargittai article. If all these different uprisings and groups were able to manipulate far cruder technologies than the internet and all the other new gadgets at today’s disposal what is stopping something from happening on the internet, much like the Titanic’s radio tragedy. I think that the Ganley article further highlights that something major could happen or be coordinated on the internet any day now, and what will be the consequences when it does?

While I found this reading interesting, it wasn’t surprising, I think that in all media whether it be blogs, television, or books, there are always some that get read or watched more than others. Like the reading explains there are a few blogs that get more traffic and more readers than other and the new readers seem only to be adding to the traffic of the top few blog. I think this a rather old phenomenon; it’s why there are some books that stay on top of the best seller list for months and why some TV show’s audience numbers continue to grow. In a society where people tend to pick what media to injest based on recommendations, whether it be by a critic, friend, or a search engine (this is the link from the class blog about how search engines rank), it’s no wonder that new readers and watchers get driven to the same popular choices.

I guess this means that the internet is a flawed open forum for discussion. While it is open to the masses so that anyone can publish thier point of view, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will get read. Which makes me wonder, if the internet is not the answer, will there ever be a forum in which all voices can be heard? And again, what will stop the rest of us from again just listening to the popular voices and ignoring the others? Maybe the masses weren’t meant to be heard, perhaps the voices that are popular are popular for a reason.

While it is understandable that blogs lack the editorial process they can still be a useful tool to get the most up to date news to the public, as demonstrated by the numerous examples of news-sponsored blogs, as well as serve as an outlet to help people in crisis. This article really exemplified the scope to which blogs are able to get important information to a public that is trying to grasp with devastation. I also thought the varying mediums showed the range to which blogs can be used to broadcast important information. For example I thought that the photo blog hosted by CNN was a great idea, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and by creating a blog of pictures CNN was able to convey a lot of information to a lot of people in a very simple way.

I think it’s also important to note the personal blogs that were mentioned because I think these really gave a personal voice to the events on the Gulf coast. These individuals were able to give an average person’s account of what had been going on prior to, and during the storm. And conversely I think it was also helpful for the people writing as a catharsis of sorts to share their feelings and endurance through the storm.