Before reading the Starr article, I was under the impression that simulation games were purely for entertainment. But ultimately, I came to the conclusion that such games as SimCity, SimEarth, etc. do much, much more than simply keep us occupied… especially for children.

I feel that the overlying concern about children’s use of simulation games is whether or not the games’ seduction is positive in terms of furthering education or negative in terms of detracting from social capital obtained from child to child interaction. After reading the Starr article, I realized that the immense latent educational value of simulation games really tips the scales towards the programs as being constructive. Children may think that they are simply playing with houses, cars, carnivals, etc., when they are really stretching their imaginations and learning about macro-economic issues such as taxes and unemployment rates. Such material generally does not come into their education until high school, if ever. Overall, these games covertly oblige children to apply important concepts to real-world situations that can potentially train them for their futures.

On another note, my only reservation concerning games about building societies is their accurate representation of how certain sociological factors actually functions. For example, does SimCity reward you for a crime free city? When really this is impossible or illogical, when you consider that crime is an important mechanism for a society to function properly? For example, if you haven’t labeled some individuals’ behavior is “bad” than you cannot contrast yourself and thereby be “good”. Furthermore, if you don’t have some sort of crime level, then coughing in church would be considered a crime.
I know this is a lengthy and somewhat convoluted example of my concern for the accuracy of such programs, but I do find it somewhat difficult and hard to believe that a program can properly predict and implement certain sociological factors.

I chose to do my assignment this morning right after I woke up so that my roommates would either be sleeping, at work or in class, as they usually are causing some sort of chaos or bothering me for some reason or another. So I cozied up in the corner of my bed facing the wall, hoping this would deter me from looking at the clock behind me. It turns out that even though I did not succumb to temptation, it was quite difficult not to look at the clock because I didn’t want to be late to class.

So what happened in these five minutes? In this time I had to fight thoughts about technology, because it was obviously the only thing that came to my mind, being that I knew it was the one thing that wasn’t supposed to think about (figures). As soon as I “batted” away my thoughts about what time it was, thoughts of my days activities came rushing to my head… who do I have to email, who do I have to call, should I be watching the news,etc. Basically, I felt completely out of touch with the world; even vulnerable, if you will.

So after these first couple minutes of fighting my thoughts about technology, I was able to relax and concentrate on my breathing, as Eszter suggested. At this time, I became completely at peace and realized exactly how stressful technology makes us. It seems to me that computers, phones, clocks, etc. only add to the chaos of our lives as they constantly remind us who we need to talk to, where we need to be or what we should be doing.

Overall, this exercise reminded me of how peaceful life can potentially be when you are all by yourself and out of touch with the rest of the world. But the truth is, in this day of age we do not have this luxury. Sure, you can go isolate yourself on the top of Mount Everest where you do not need a clock, computer, TV etc. (even though you of course need a walki- talki… but this is beside the point). My point is that if you want to be part of society, you need these technological tools. And quite frankly, I would rather deal with the stress that they promote as long as I get to keep my cell, computer, clocks, TV, etc. And if I really do need to get away from it all, now I know that I have the corner of my to take a break from technology and catch my breath in.

Today in class we discussed the positive and negative aspects of surveillance… It is true that invasion of privacy can be potentially harmful, however I would like to share with you an example of surveillance that we as a community benefit from. Family Watchdog is a site that enables us to search for sexual offenders in our area. I received this site days ago and after typing in my address, I discovered several sexual predators living in my area. It is true that these individuals with a history of sexual violence may not appreciate their pictures, names and addresses being accessible by their neighbors, but in my opinion it is worth it for the safety and well-being of the community.

So after simply “Googling” Jason Gallo I was presented with a myriad of information. Below are a sampling of the websites and blogs :

Into the Blogosphere
Here, we learn that Jason Gallo is now a PhD student in the School of Communications at Northwestern University after receiving a BA from Colorado College and a MA from Georgetown. He is currently doing research for his dissertation on the US government’s role in “promoting the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science”.

My Heart’s in Accra
I enjoyed this blog in particular, as it talks about our own Eszter Hargittai’s research with Jason Gallo. In this experiment, the two intellectuals explored the idea of “The Daily Me” in which they ultimately found that conservatives are more likely to cross-reference other opinions.

Overall, my exploration of Jason Gallo not only informed me on his life, but also on the different resources available for research purposes. Having both subjective and objective material available really put an interesting spin on my thoughts prior to actually attending his lecture.

Boyd Article
It seems to me that the failure of Friendster’s initial purpose of dating lies in the fact that the online social networking is based on the assumption that users will connect with actual friends. If this is the case, why would it be necessary to go online to meet a partner you are already friends with, when you see them in person constantly? Ultimately, the creator HAD to change the functions of Friendster into a “network of friends” as a result of its faulty execution of its business model. On another note, if the site was originally meant for dating, why would one name it Friendster? Wouldn’t a more appropriate name be “Datester”?

Another obstacle in the way of Friendster’s success as a dating service is that you can not venture beyond four degrees of your friends. It may have been more effective to integrate a search function that enables individuals to search the entire database on a few criteria. By doing so, you would have a larger pool of potential dates rather than only being able to connect with a limited network.

Resnick Article
One of Resnick’s conclusions is that buyers and sellers will behave according to the norm of reciprocity. This is great if both parties recieve their end of the deal, thereby rating each other positively. However, the authors fail to consider the potentially negative outcomes of the norm of reciprocity. This deals with one unsatisfied party receiving a negative rating and retaliating by giving the other a negative rating as well. I have personally experienced this when after payment, the seller notified me that the item was never available to begin with… and after a negative response, I was ultimately given a negative rating.

So in conclusion, one may believe that unsatisfied customers may be more inclined to provide feedback on the seller because of their negative experience, however, they may be afraid of possible retaliation, as I am today.

Putting this pessimistic thought aside, I do believe that overall the feedback and rating systems of marketplaces are extremely effective. I am far more prone to choose to buy a particular item from a seller that even has one point above another, simply because other buyers have deemed the individual “more trustworthy”.

Keiran Healy’s article discusses the concerns over access to cultural materials over the web. Such concerns include censorship, accessibility, etc. I understand why there are concerns over the public’s access to such valuable cultural items as literature, art, etc., when we can see that the internet enables individuals to pirate copyrighted materials (talked about in the Lessig article). However, I believe that having access to such cultural items online is a good thing for many reasons.

First of all, it allows for people that cannot physically travel to experience such remarkable works.

Second, such items would not be considered part of our “culture” if they were not meant for public viewing… the internet just facilitates this (and does not harm it).

Third, I believe that the internet is in itself a cultural icon. The internet allows for certain parts of our culture to thrive and has aided in major technological advances of our era.

Overall, in one hundred years when people look back at American culture of the late twentieth century the internet will be a major component in the evolution of American culture and tradition.

Lessig says it all in the statement, “We have become so concerned about protecting the instrument that we are losing sight of its value”. We basically need to stop worrying about our culture falling into the wrong hands and just sit back and appreciate that the internet has facilitated our enjoyment of it. I mean, wasn’t music, art and literature created for public appreciation and enjoyment to begin with?

After our class on search engines I began wondering why we prefer one over the other. Does one have better customization preferences? Better filtering? Better result composition? Or does one simply have better PR, and therefore we think of it first? Take Google for example… we learned through the graphs and statistics provided in class that Google is the most popular (most popular is an understatement) search engine of the moment. Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, how did Google surpass the search engines that existed before its time, say Yahoo, for example? I pose this question, because according to Shirky (a previous reading) as time progresses it is more and more difficult for a particular website to introduce itself online and establish a firm place in its industry. Do you think this claim is false or an overgeneralization? And if so, what was and is Google’s competitive advantage?

Lastly, what does it take for a search engine to be successful this day in age? I personally believe the accuracy of the results is foremost important. But it now seems as if the search engines think miscellaneous functions are important to their success. For example, Google has other options that include alerts, labs, SMS, etc that have nothing to do with its primary function. Are such seemingly unnecessary items now necessary to be successful?

The Politics of Search Engines suggests that the leading search engines give websites an advantage over others by allowing for them to be ranked higher through unfair means… and this, therefore, is undemocratic. But while reading this article, I found that the search engines work on a direct parallel to the functioning of American society. Both people and websites pay to be put at an advantage (ie campaign trails), while others “network” to be put at an advantage, etc. So essentially, if American society is “democratic” and it mimics search engines, aren’t search engines “democratic” as well? On another note, isn’t the statement, “[the web] promises access to the kind of information that aids upward social mobility” (181), a bit of a reach or overgeneralization? It appears that the writers think that online search engines have the potential to end poverty based on the information they provide.

The Digital Divide similarly seems to claim that because of the inequality in society that ultimately limits access to technology and the internet to only those that can afford it or have access, certain individuals are put at a major disposition. I believe that this issue comes first and foremost in aiding social mobility, rather than just search engines alone (as mentioned above). This is truly a lack of access to information (physically, not just digitally), as opposed to Introna and Nissebaum’s claim that search engines are solely responsible for the restricted access to information. Before one can properly access all information through a search engine, is it not most important to actually have (or have access to) a computer?

Ganley makes the point that the Internet has greatly empowered the individual by allowing him/her to collect large volumes of information, overcome distance and time, etc. We have all experienced and fully utilized this amazing technological ability, and we greatly appreciate it, however, I also believe that the Internet is potentially a dangerous tool. Take the institution of the Government for example; the Internet can enable rebels, traitors, terrorists or others meaning harm to distribute propaganda, attract support of like-minded people and possibly form coalitions or networks of individuals that have harmful motives.

We have already seen examples of the deleterious of effects of information found on the web utilized to harm people… we see this on websites with information on how to make bombs. Imagine what could have happened if the Internet was around in the days of Hitler, etc. How does or should the government regulate and combat such uses? How does the government determine its domain of regulation since the Internet is worldwide? And where do they draw the line on the rights of an individual’s freedom of access to information?

The Hargittai article additionally sites the dangers of the Internet when referrencing the Titanic incident where distress calls were mixed indiscriminately with other messages by amateur users. She states, “it is only a question of time before a disaster of similar magnitude to the Titanic happens because of some action (or inaction) associated with the Internet”. What would a parallel event on the internet be? Is it fathomable that as the radio was transformed into a medium solely for government or commercial use, the fear of similar events will cause the Internet to do so as well? Is the internet even comparable to the radio in terms of its usage/purpose and the repercussions of possibly regulating or even expelling its millions of users?

The following are a list of websites that will take up hours and hours of your much needed study time…
Ebaum’s World
Kodak Gallery (only if you are an avid digital-picture taker)
The Facebook