Blessing or a Curse?

Cell phones. Are they a blessing, or a curse? In most situations, many people would classify them as a blessing. Parents, on the other hand, may consider cell phones a curse when kids ignore them, text at dinner, or avoid face-to-face conversation. Cell phones have penetrated our culture so thoroughly that being without one puts an individual at a severe disadvantage. It’s almost gotten to the point where being without a cell phone capable of connecting to the Internet is a major inconvenience.

In today’s climate, cell phones are basically an extension of ourselves. They function as a form of communication, entertainment, gaming, and more. One function closely related to the content of Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs is the ability for phones to coordinate location and assemble meetings. We’ve recently seen the power of mobile technology in action when phones were predominantly used to organize the protests in Egypt.

In the article, Rheingold discusses Lovegety and p2p Journalism providing examples such as a “Mobile cupid service” and ImaHima. These examples are early versions of location-based social networking. As an avid user of social networking sites, I’ve seen a drastic rise in popularity and usage of location-based social networking services, most notably Foursquare and Facebook Places. Applications that at one point would be considered a clear invasion of ones privacy are now being used freely and frequently.

The impact, and potential power, of location-based social networking is already being displayed. As previously stated, the Egyptian protests are prime examples of these services in play, but there are many other practical usages to these social networks. From letting friends know where you’re at on a Saturday night to gaining coupons and other benefits from restaurants, there are plenty of uses for location-based social networking. Yet, it begs the question: in the future will applications like Foursquare and Facebook Places be seen as a blessing, or a curse?

Local Smart Mobs

Howard Rheingold discusses how innovative technologies, such as cell phones, have played a vital role in the formation and organization of demonstrations and inspiring overthrows and revolutions. Rheingold refers to this as “smart mobs” and touches on several instances in which successfully led to a government overthrow. This type of organizing by means of technology is growing. Although cell phones were prevalent among the cases Rheingold refers to, I feel today people are using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The protests in Egypt were ignited by Twitter and inspired further action and protests. These demonstrations were making a large impact in Egypt and causing a threat to government and were eventually shut down altogether. This is just one example of the power of technology and how ‘smart mobs’ are evolving and updating their communication mediums.
Locally, there have also been different forms of “smart mobs.” Before the voting on the 21 ordinance, several groups were organized through Facebook to attend City Council meeting that objected the ordinance. According to the Facebook event page, more than 400 members were attending and 430 were awaiting reply. Although not all 400 showed up at the city council meeting, the large numbers of response on the Facebook event page brought media attention and helped publicized students viewpoints on the ordinance. Overall, the event was still successful in that the city council had to turn people away from the doors because the meeting room was filled to capacity. Facebook continued to help groups advocating for both sides of the issue by organizing groups of support or against the ordinance which allowed organizers to plan other events as well. Although this type of organization wasn't to the same extent as the cases Rheingold refers to throughout the article, this shows smart mobs can exist in other forms. I think this type of mobilization will continue and grow as new forms of technology are introduced.

Is this really necessary?

I found the section on "Mobile Ad Hoc Social Networks" particularly interesting, but I was left with this overarching question of whether or not this is needed and if anyone will do it. Just because Bluetooth lets us do this I don't see why you would want to unless you are in a really boring conference somewhere and you don't want to speak with you friends verbally. They say there is a time and a place for everything, but is this technology going to hurt human interaction and communication? I think the jury is still out on this, but for the time being we need to focus on developing technologies that actually make a difference for people. Instead of worrying about BBM's, text messages, ad hoc social networks etc etc why not develop technology which allows for police officers to better monitor criminals using this technology or even a cure for cancer. We have the ability great, but do we need it? http://bimboom.blogspot.com/2011/04/too-much-technology-scripted-revit-bim.html

Power of Technology

Howard Rheingold writes about smart mobs, or groups of people that use technology as a device in order to organize an operation to take place. Rheingold gives us many examples of instances where cell phones were used to organize citizens of a country to overthrow their government. For example, on January 20, 2001, President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines became the first head of state to lose power to a smart mob. This overthrowing was done by citizens through text messaging.

After reading this article, I began to analyze how much society uses technology to communicate and how powerful it really is. It is amazing that we can use different forms of technology in order to overturn a government. The recent example of this is in Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak was forced from office due to the citizen’s revolution. How could a President be overthrown by citizens? It was all done by gathering people through social-networks online. Technology has created ways that a large number of people can communicate and at any moment they wish. These advancements help keep people up to date with what is going on. Text messaging helps people find out where people are located at all times.

Once I thought about how astounding it is that technology can have such a huge impact on people, I started to think about the other aspects of social mobs. There has also been social mobs that come together to interact with society in other ways than riots. For example, as I was reading this article, I began to think about the idea of flash mobs. Flash mobs are a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual or pointless act for a certain period of time. After that time is up, the people then move off to wherever they were originally going and act like nothing just happened. The purpose of this mob is for entertainment. The way that flash mobs are created is through different types of media, such as texting, emails, social networks, etc. If we did not have all of these technology tools, people would not have the easy communication techniques to get the word out to people in a fast amount of time. These mobs would have a more difficult time being so powerful.

Cell Phones: Good or Bad?

Cell phones have come to be part of a movement in protesting the government, such as the Filipinos who SMSed to wear black to break down Estrada. Filipinos could not afford computers or other technologic devices, let alone call anyone, but text messages were so cheap that everyone could successfully organized the protest with the use of them. And yet, the Filipinos then could not stop texting after they succumbed to their cell phones. Before there was texting, people assembled in Manila, like the Battle of Seattle. The Internet as progressed these groups and they operate in small units, dispersed throughout so they can take control when needed. Since this article is a little older, it states that they were testing technologies with GPS systems in them that are mobile. Obviously, we have already seen this in smart phones. This article also says that although these technologies do great things, they can also organize groups that will do the opposite and create groups to destroy something good. Technologies have also been used to create silly things like when Tokyo produced “ImaHima” to alert people when their friends are around. A lot of the examples from the article were much like Apps being used on peoples telephone. This application was also apart of a GPS system. Text messaging has also saved lives, like in September 11^th, Alex LeVine texting people to evacuate the building, even though some of the cell phone services were down. Cell phones have done both good and bad for the 21st century.

The power of the mobile

In Howard Rheingold's chapter "Smart Mobs", he discusses how people have been able to connect and orchestrate large meetings or protests by using their cell phone. The cell phone gave people the opportunity to communicate quickly and somewhat discreetly so members of the group could be instantly notified of important information. This collaboration has led to many protests and uprisings, especially in the past two years. While this technology has been working in our favor is it possible that it could actually prevent these smart mobs? Even though the number of applications we can use to connect with other people is growing the technology and applications used for surveillance are also growing. Everything from our daily routine to our realationships, moods, health and calling habits can be examined. Not only is it monitoring these things but with help from computers they can also predict our future activities. They can also determine who are major influencers within our communities. Cell phones are the ideal technology to use for monitoring not only because they already track our every location (like the iPhones) but also because so many people own one. It is reported that nearly 3/4 of the worlds population owns a phone and with advancements in technology this number is sure to rise. Not only does a large population own phones but they take them everywhere and have integrated many of their other social devices in with their phones so they can have all of their information in one place. With the growing ability to be monitored it is more likely that smart mobs will be exposed before they have the chance to coordinate any large uprising or conflict.

Smart Mobs

"Smart Mobs" was a very interesting excerpt because things like this are happening today. People are using techonology more than ever to overthrow governments, or to get their beliefs across to a vast majority of people. Social networks like twitter and facebook do what was described in "Smart Mobs." People would use cell phones and text messaging to spread the word of the people. Cell phone and social networking sites are now able to get a huge group of people together in a short amount of time. This can be very difficult to regulate, but this sort of thing happened with the revolts in Egypt. The Egypt government had to stop access to these social networking sites because people were able to get together and organize too easily. Technology as it grows will become our worst own enemy because as it provides us with so many wonderful things, people will still be able to use it for evil. By using social networks and cell phones to connect and interact, people are able to get their ideas down in one big place. The good thing for the government though is that if they are looking for leaders of these groups, they can always just refer back to the social networking agent that was used. The records will always be there and it will be easier to find the people who are organizing these things. The goups formed will get people together quicker, but it can also backfire because nothing will be private. Officials will be able to find out where the people plan on going, what they are doing, and who is involved. This makes it very easy for the govrnment to prepare for a protest. The number will be greater because of the way word is able to spread, but the govrnment will be more ready for when these sort of things to happen.

The Power of "Mob Technology"

Howard Rheingold discusses how many mobile phones were used to overthrow governments between the 1990s as well as part of the early 2000s. This occurred in more than one country as Rheingold talks about. Rheingold touches on the “People Power II” demonstrations that took place in 2001 in the Philippines. The people of this country used text messages to spread jokes and rumors which turned to be very political. This particular form of communication made it possible to actually deteriorate and prove the people’s dislike towards the then current President Estrada. Through text messages they began to protest against the stop of the impeachment of Estrada. Over four days, more than a million people showed up just by hearing about it through text messages. As Rheingold points out this began the hallmark of early smart mob technology.

This reminds me a lot of what happened in Egypt recently. On January 25^th, protests started off in Egypt, which was inspired by other protests such as the one that was successful in Tunisia. These protests were the first to take place on this type of level since the 1970s. In response to this the government blocked certain social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Since many of the protesters found other ways around using Facebook and Twitter, the government actually had to block all internet services in the country, including texting. However after reading all of this did they really think it would make things better? Governments turn to these social networking sites and blocking them as if they are a privilege to use, however as seen in Egypt it only makes the people more upset and want to protest and go against the Government even more. This makes me wonder what would happen if something like this occurred in the United States, considering the fact that Twitter and Facebook originated in the U.S.

Informational Cascades

Thinking in class and further reading Cass Sunstein's Republic 2.0 I thought of the ways in which people give meaning to and believe false information because of the repetition of it and because they can always find an answer they agree with or one that aligns with their point of view. It also further interested me when I woke up and the first thing that popped up on my internet was an answer to the birther's questions and concerns over President Obama's birth certificate and the authenticity of the long form certificate. All of this concern sadly made me pay attention to the 20 minute or so speech Donald Trump gave today in which he touted himself as the reason the long form certificate was released and further seemed to claim information that had been cascaded and uncertain as the truth. He often said that "he has heard" or that people have told him sensational things and that all of todays problems "he heard" could be fixed easily if he was to run for and become President. If his claims are true that he is leading the polls at this stage in the next election, I feel bad for our country and feel that people must be as Cass Sunstein puts it being fragmented and led to believe whatever they want to. It also makes me wonder how Sunstein can even be optimistic or have a hope that the internet will become a deliberative ground and a powerful democratic force, when people are just finding others that are like-minded and creating and circulating news that may not even be true or authentic, and some just flat out false. It is sad to see masses of people gradually and somewhat quickly become dumber or misinformed as the internet continues to become the main source of information to most. While it is fast, massively distributed and disseminated these also are the problems with internet information. Now anything anyone says can be doubted and things that used to be counted as credible and true can be disputed with no deliberation. With media decadence and informational cascades, people continue to be misinformed and they all seem to be happy with it.

To change thoughts for a moment, I have been thinking constantly of Kurzweil's foreseen future of man and computer interfacing and merging, and the chapter in Sunstein's book about internet v-chips made me wonder if we could see a future like the creators of South Park did when they came out with the South Park movie. If v-chips are widely spread on computers could we eventually v-chip our children if they were connected to machines? The scene is all in jest, but it can paint a grim picture if you dwell on it for very long.

Smart Revolutions

Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs is a novel that discusses the power new technologies have had in organizing revolutions and overthrows. The smart mobs, he writes, are a network of people, operating through technologies such as computers, cell phones and other mobile devices. The efforts of these people can be both social and political. In the beginning of the chapter he writes of the Filipino takedown of President Joseph Estrada in 2001. This type of political influence has been felt over the last twenty years and has had remarkable results. Just this past year we have seen social revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Libya. Rheingold’s chapter defines a “network” as including nodes and links, using many possible paths to distribute information from any link to any other. This book was written almost ten years ago and was a precursor to the revolts we see today. These developing technologies are connecting people and orchestrating these revolts. Media theorist Clay Shirky commented on the recent “Twitter Revolution” in Tunisia. Shirky said that, “no one claims social media makes people angry enough to act [but] it helps angry people coordinate their actions.” Indeed these new forms of technologies lead to “smart mobs,” or coordination that was never before possible. In the case of Egypt it took thirty years for the people to overthrow Hosni Mubarak. This is mainly attributed to the overwhelming rallies, coordinated by digital technology. As Rheingold detailed, the network-structured communications hold great potential for enabling democratic forms of decision-making and collective action.

Posted by: Mike Anderson

Some Serious Social Networking

In Howard Rheingold’s “Smart Mobs”, he talks about how cell phones were used to organize demonstrations in order to overthrow governments in the 1990’s and early 2000’s in several different countries. More recently, this has happened in Egypt with social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I think it’s crazy that text messages and social networking sites like Facebook can have such a huge impact to organizing a governmental overthrow. I get on Facebook multiple times a day to update my status, upload pictures, and to see what my friends are doing—petty reasons. Never would I have thought that it could have such a serious use, and never ever would I have thought that someone would name their baby “Facebook” because they were so happy that the protests in Egypt were made possible via this site.

In response to the January 25^th revolution in Egypt, the government took Internet and cell phone communication away. What I want to know is how the government thinks that by taking away Internet and cell phone usage, it is going to make the problem better? This to me seems like an easy way to make your citizens even angrier which leads to more burning of buildings, violence, and death of your own citizens. With the U.S. having one of the highest usages of social networking sites, it’s scary to think what would happen if a revolution started in our country.

External Forces of Smart Mobs

The journal article “Smart Mobs” by Howard Rheingold examines the transforming power of collective intellect and behavior of people derived from digital networks. In his argument he makes the claim that a conservative individual would not take action on his or her own against the government but only if many others were already committed to action. He furthers his argument in his claim, “mobile media that can augment the informal, mostly unconscious information exchanges that take place within the Interaction Order, or affect the size or location of exchanges, have the potential to change the threshold for collective action (pg. 175).” There are many global news examples of this seen today that support this idea of a threshold for collective action.

The recent democratic revolution in China is just one more example of a “smart mob” coming together collectively via Twitter and blogs to demonstrate against an authoritarian government. Social networking sites have allowed for people to come together as a powerful “force.” As with most political reform, there are always external forces that attempt to put down this force. China has recently arrested pro-democratic activists for their organizing of online mobs. As mentioned in the article, these minority activists triggered action of others to jump on the revolution bandwagon. By monitoring and censoring the Internet as well as arresting those initiating action, China has executed efforts to destroy collective behavior among citizens.

In democratic countries where censorship is not much of an issue (with the exception of controversy over WikiLeaks), there are many efforts on expanding collective community through the Internet. Google had recently announced Kansas City as the first place to get new ultrafast broadband Internet. Faster Internet means an even greater threshold for collective action. Google announced its site for “Fiber for Communities” program will “deliver Internet access more than 100 times faster than the home broadband connections. Smart mobs can be predicted to be even more widespread and effective as the spread of “Fiber for Communities” program is spread. This is another external force that plays a role in the development of smart mobs and their effectiveness.

Smart Mobs: Videos in Real Time

In this chapter of Smart Mobs, I think that the most fascinating thing to me is the ability to send videos in real time over the Internet. You think about the popular culture implications of YouTube and what a profound effect it has had on our society. Next to Facebook and Twitter, it is one of the most visited sites by people all around the world. YouTube is such a great tool that we can use in the classroom, to go back and view interviews from past Presidential elections or the infamous John Stewart interview on CrossFire. I have viewed this clip several times in my years here in the Communication Studies program and it is one of the funniest, insightful pieces of pop culture that we have to look at and point to as an influential moment in time. Stewart essentially hijacks the show and lets Tucker Carlson know that he is a hack and what he does is not conducive and a positive message to promote in our society.

The powerful technological tools enables individuals to be powerful nodes in the network of creation and I believe that YouTube will continue to be a huge part of our culture.

Should the Internet Be Restricted By V-chips?

In Chapter 9 of his book, Republic.com 2.0, Cass R Sunstein mentions the V-chip technology that was introduced to America after the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The V-chip is intended to block inappropriate programming for children on home television sets. With the technology, parents can set a level of acceptable viewing for their children and the V-chip decides whether that program is over that level or not based on ratings of sex, violence and language.

However, it is only television sets that have been sold since 2000 that are required to have the V-chip installed. Therefore, there are several families that don't have access to the technology because they haven't bought a new TV since 2000. Furthermore, many parents who have bought a new set do not realize it has a V-chip and so do not use it.

The V-chip has shown some success, however, in homes that utilize it and the debate now is whether computers and the Internet should be installed with the same kind of technology. Sunstein argues that computers shouldn't have the V-chip because websites have such a large "range and diversity" so the technology wouldn't "make sense". However, there has been some governmental push to initiate the V-chip in technologies other than the television. For example, in 2007, Mitt Romney proposed V-chips for Internet to stop children from stumbling upon pornography sites. However, as the blogger notes, this would be a very difficult task because the Internet is so big and democratic, and it seems that Romney's request comes from the fear and cluelessness about the Internet from the GOP.

It is clear that the concept of the V-chip could be affective for the Internet because there needs to be some form of restriction for parents and their children online. However, I think that this goes against the basic structure of the Internet, specifically in the US, where information is free, democratic and interactive on the Internet.

Celebrities And Their Spending Habits

In the beginning of Chapter 10 in Cass Sunstein’s “Republic.com 2.0,” he talks about the consumer and citizen. On page 216 he states, “The “consumption treadmill” means that for many products, people’s purchases of more and better goods will make them spend more, and possibly much more, without really making them happier or improving their lives.” Immediately after I read this quote, professional athletes and individuals in the entertainment industry popped into my head. We have all seen episodes of “Cribs” on MTV where rich professional athletes, actors, actresses, etc. live in mansions with all the luxuries an individual can think of: pools, game rooms, movie theaters, bowling alleys, basketball courts, a golf course, a recording studio, nice cars, and motorcycles. I can go on forever listing all the nice items these celebrities possess, but do they really need all of these “toys?” Sunstein and I do not think so. Sunstein does not think these material possessions are making these people happier or improving their lives because they are awesome to have at first, but the appeal of these objects wear off after awhile which makes these celebrities buy more and more “stuff.” Sooner or later, these celebrities declare for bankruptcy and their lives are turned completely upside down.

Sunstein states earlier on page 216 that “it seems natural to believe that the more people can “customize,” or individuate, their preferred products, the better things will be.” We see this with cars on almost every episode of “Cribs.” Celebrities own multiple cars, and they customize almost all of them, but is this making them happier inside? I don’t think so. It’s nice to own those nice cars, but how often do they even drive them? Buying more cars and putting thousands of dollars into each of them so they are customized to your liking, in my opinion, is making things worse rather than better for these celebrities.

Keeping With The Status Quo

I think that Sunstein brings up a good point to round out his ninth chapter, when he talks about the tyranny of the status quo. I believe that far too often people are concerned with what is wrong and pointing these things out instead of focusing on solutions to become better. In the section on the commodity of attention, the idea of bloggers including both sides of an argument in their blogrolls is an important way for us to advance in our ways of thinking. Like Sunstein says, it is unlikely to happen and it is noted that the First Amendment assures that a liberal blogger has the right to not provide a link to a topic presented by a conservative, but in all actuality this would be for the best. I think that broadening horizons for people is a good thing, and unfortunately I agree with Sunstein that this is probably a perfect Utopian idea that will never see the light of day, but if the idea is brought up enough perhaps sometime people will become fed up with the status quo and try to provide a new way of doing things, and main lining these proposals for how we might better regulate the internet to achieve our democratic goals.

The V Chip was mentioned in this chapter as well, and I found it interesting because I had not heard anything about this device for sometime. This article from 2001 shows that few parents used it back then and I would have to predict that it has dwindled considerably more since then. I suppose most televisions now have ways to block channels, I think you could when I was a kid, but my parents didn't use them but I know parents that did back in the day. I think that kids do need sheltering obviously when they are very young and beginning to learn how to use a remote, but after awhile it is important to teach kids lessons and programs on television are a valuable way to do that. Talking to kids about what they see on TV and what their feelings are is a healthy exercise in that it stimulates the mind rather just idly watching and not making a thoughtful and intelligent connection.

Group Think

On the Internet, we are allowed to pick and choose that communities we want to be involved in and most of those people will make the same choices as others, even in a wide range of people. In our 2.0 societies, there is an abundance of information, almost too much information, and people continue to stick to their own point of view and forget about the other information. If people pick their own type of entertainment and information, it might be harder for people to connect socially. Some of the websites are dedicated to hate groups, with over one hundred thousand visitors, and with some over a million. One of those groups is called the Unorganized Militia, “’which believes that the federal government is becoming increasingly dictatorial with its regulatory power over taxes, guns and land use.’” They have one main website with links to others on their viewpoints. Group polarization can become a problem within these groups. Group polarization is, “people are likely to move towards more extreme point in the direction to which the group’s members were originally inclined.” If people are discussing the same thing, they will all get to the same conclusion but in a very extreme form. This became part of the Unorganized Militia where they continued with racial hate groups, which probably wasn’t their intention. Two main explanations for group polarization are the role of persuasive arguments and social comparison, which are people who want to look favorably in the eyes of their peers. Group Polarization exists in the present day society as well.

Virtual Cubicle

In, “The Corporate Virtual Workspace” Steve Pruitt and Tom Barrett believe that, “cyber technology will be a primary driver towards new corporate architecture.” Corporations will economically succeed with this new structure. The first part is a future scenario of Austin Curry living in his house and working in his won home of the virtual workspace, projected on a screen in his office, it is a typical office building, making it seem like he is actually there. He can go down hallways, passing is colleagues, and look out the office window as though he is actually there and joins conference rooms for meeting and project purposes. He even has virtualized clothing. His “Daily chores” consist of checking his virtual mail; call up people to talk about assignments, and uses robots to help out with his other work. The reasons for the corporate workspace are that the evolution of software technology as it becomes easier to build and use. Also, economically, it is becoming harder to build large-scale software systems. You can take the best skilled people in the world and have them work for one company. This virtual workspace will also increase productivity. But one of the best reasons is, “cyberspace will free an individual from space and time constraints.” This will allow anyone to live anywhere is the world and work at the company of their choice. For the corporation, it is great because most of the information in the company is just knowledge related, so they don’t need to hire people based on there physical skills. They can also do all of their advertising via cyberspace, which is more affordable and parallel to their company. Companies are starting to experiment with the mobility of virtual workspaces.

Internet Regulation

In Chapter 7 of Cass Sunstein’s Republic 2.0 he discusses regulation of the Internet. In the chapter he argues that there shouldn’t be any Internet regulation because the Internet should be considered a public sphere, and the information is public space.

I find this argument to be severely flawed because the Internet is far from a public sphere. The only real thing that’s public about the Internet is the fact that anyone with access to it can generate content. Businesses, marketers, and advertisers have capitalized the Internet as a way of receiving enormous revenues. There’s an extreme barrier to entry for Internet access, most notably high subscription fees to service providers.

To me, a deregulated public sphere is akin to asking for blanket free speech protection. In order for a meeting, or public gathering (protest, etc) to be protected by free speech it has to be on public property. The Internet, which serves the private interests of businesses, is not public property, or a public sphere, and therefore should be regulated accordingly.

Deregulation and lack of oversight leads to severe problems. I respect freedom of speech protection, and as a journalism student I know its necessity. However, comprehensive deregulation of the Internet would cause far more problems than benefits. There certainly are areas where regulation, or government involvement is unnecessary. For example, the Library of Congress is archiving all tweets on Twitter. I find this to be extremely pointless and a colossal waste of time and resources.

All in all, there needs to be Internet regulation. Freedom of speech, and its protection, should remain as is, but a deregulated Internet is asking for problems. One needs to look no further than the 2008 financial crisis to know that deregulation is absolutely not the answer.

The Reclusive Society

I agree with Mr. Sunstein's assessment in chapter three that society can become reclusive and walled off by the Internet. What I find interesting is this idea that many of us were told in the early years of the Internet - don't trust it. Now everyone takes what they find on the Internet as solid fact but in reality I don't think much has changed. Sure there are more sources and people are more dependent on the Internet but there are still people out there engaging in National Enquirer activities. Furthermore, I think that the idea that people can wall themselves off and only use the Internet to live is stupid. There is obviously something going on to drive that person to withdrawal from society. And what happens if the Internet goes down? Do these people have panic attacks and major anxiety issues? We live in an era where it is not uncommon for the Internet to be down and yet more and more of our daily lives use the Internet. Like Mr. Sunstein I wonder if this is the best thing for our society. I think more caution is needed. My link shows what NE like places on the net can do for a person - panic!http://www.cultofmac.com/shock-national-enquirer-wrong-about-steve-jobs-death/89206

Is group polarization always bad?

In chapter 3 of Republic.com 2.0 Cass Sunstein talks about polarization on the internet. He explains that the internet allows groups of people that may not have the opportunity to interact to be able to talk and communicate with each other. He gives examples of terrorist and hate groups being formed and grown online. He believes this is dangerous because when individuals of similar thoughts and beliefs come together their opinions become more intense. He gives only a few situations when group polarization benefited groups and society. I think his approach to group polarization is too negative because it seems like he focuses mainly on the bad examples of it. One recent event that I feel like is a good example of this is the revolutions in the different counties such as Egypt. The citizens were able to form groups and set up protests all with the help of social networking and the internet. Most likely, they were also able to see that others had the same feelings that they shared which amplified the groups beliefs and pushed them to take action.

Republic.com2.0

As Sunstein says in chapter 7 the internet very well should be free speech. What we say and do should not be regulated on it because it is a public atmosphere. What happens online should stay online, but when it crosses over to real life then people can have the right to step in.
Take the show How to Catch a Predator for example. Talking online to minors is not illegal, but it is very disgusting and wrong. Once they act on it by trying to go to the kids house, they are arrested by the police.
The internet is such a tricky thing to try to have control over. More and more everyday people are getting on to social networking sites and blogger sites and speaking their mind. It is crazy how bloggers are now used as legitimate sources, eventhough it is just somone's opinion.
The internet is almost impossible to monitor because of the amount of users and the amount of activity on it. There are too many different areas to try and look over. By the time something wrong is found, someone somewhere else is doing the exact same thing. Downlading of music and movies is something that is able to be monitored, but I do not know if the internet would be "the internet" if it was not for the free speech of everyone across the world.

The Polarization of Our-Self's

Cass R. Sunstein talks about the polarization of the consumer’s life in the modern digital age. By this he means that due to the complete customization that we experience each day it is possible to surround ourselves by content that we align with. He argues that a Republican is more inclined to read or watch a breaking news story on FOX while a Democrat would prefer to watch the same story on CNN. People that have niche interests or have peculiar hobbies might find their group on the Internet. This trend, Sunstein argues, is making the average American more polarized, leading us to have less in common with our fellow man. The result has been felt in the media, in politics, and in our social lives. The more options we have to choose from the more we begin to focus our likes and dislikes away from what may be common, but to things that are custom. Taylor made around our interests are TV shows, websites or blogs, and especially music. By insulating ourselves this mass customization is leading to a mass polarization, which may one day rob us of common qualities at all. The fear that Sunstein warns of is that we may become so out of touch with our neighbors and community that we may not be able to come together to solve problems or make progress, especially in government. In an article by David Murton he discusses the WI-FI dilemma and just how the use of it in coffee shops dilutes our social boundry. In one sense we are closer to someone we may be talking to on our laptops than the people we are literally sitting next to in a coffee shop. This reinforces the notion that our internet self is more true and social than our self in the real world.

Posted By: Mike Anderson

"Filtering" stepping on the toes of Democracy

Cass R. Sunstein in Republic 2.0 opens with an assertion that a threat to Democracy will emerge as people have the opportunity to chose the content they are exposed to in the media.  He used an on-line newspaper, Daily Me, as an example of how "people are mainly listening to louder echoes of their own voices." (Sunstein 13) He does not negate technological advancements but the impact some aspects of it may have on the general public. Technology allow people the power to "filter" what they are exposed to in the media. Cass argues filtering will threaten democracy as it directly attacks freedom of expression. "Censorship is indeed the largest threat to Democracy and Freedom." (Cass 5) According to him, Democracy lies in the exposure of things that one normally wouldn't expose themselves to, and the need for people to share common  experiences with one another.

Cass makes several interesting points but I am not completely sold on his assertions. He argued that, "These are problems that stem not from the action of producers, but instead from the choices and preferences of consumers." I think the real threat is in the action of the producers. Cass is the only one living in a utopia if he thinks that "general-interest intermediaries" epitomizes Democracy. He is over exaggerating with his point that people would pretty much interact only with like-minded people.  General interest intermediaries is a platform where diverse topics and ides are available. I don't think the problem would be as bad as Cass predicts. First, he assumes that the current, or newly-old ways media exposes people to content, promotes Democracy. I learned in my Media & Consumers class that that are only five corporations that owns pretty much everything consumers read, view of TV, and hear on the radio. Its hypocritical to address one threat the Democracy but throw another one in an "off topic" pile. I just feel like with Cass arguments, we are pretty much trading on threat of Democracy (freedom of speech) for another (freedom of speech.) Those five companies only produce what they want consumers to see. Is it so bad that consumers have the freedom to chose what they are exposed to? Its all in the interest of capitalism anyway. As people start selecting content and "filtering" information, the system "gets-to-know" a person and start tailoring content, resulting in the tailoring of products.  I mean didn't facebook, a general interest intermediary platform, already encouraged a revolution? 

Are We Undermining the Diversity of Speech Online?

The first two chapters of Republic.com 2.0 do not form a persuasive argument in my point of view, for the author uses intuitive judgment about every Internet user's online experience. Here are the two primary assumptions that underline these chapters: 1) politically everyone likes to hear only opinions that he/she allies to; 2) one has little chance to be exposed to unexpected content online. However, I find it hard to agree with such ground that the author's argument based on.

First of all, it is true that we'd like to support our own stance on the political spectrum, but it is the constant comparison and debate that constitutes and vitalizes the political forum. In other words, even if a conservative firmly believes his/her political choice, one will have to distinguish the advantages of this political view by learning and combating the opposite. However the situation depicted in the book easily slips into a world where conservatives only read heavily conservative-biased news and commentary, and liberals ready only liberal ideas, and the nation becomes an ugly battlefield of politicians of two parties. This kind of imagination overlook the motivation of one's political choice. Everyone among the mass audience needs a motivation and reason to support his/her point of view through contrast and differentiation, which is not considered in the book.

Secondly, the author spends many words informing the reader that by consuming general-interest intermediaries, one is more likely to come across topics and opinions that he or she may not expect to have interested in. My question is how is that different from our online browsing experience? Every individual has unique set of interests and we are always being exposed to new possibilities when we are reading a news, a blog post, or a tweet. While we can create a very customized Daily Me, the rich and diverse content online offers even more paths to unplanned reading than the atom-made media.

In short, I think the first two chapters of the book echo the archaic Hypodermic Needle Theory, undermines the competence of individuals, and assumes a mass audience that has little ability to make choices.

Should the Internet be like the "Old West"?

The idea of the Internet being a place of no consequence seems like very reachable, but in the end does not seem all that likely of ever happening. Sunstein lays out the idea that deregulation of the Internet is something that some would argue for and they have a point but not a strong one. The property rights and laws that are in place are not only there to protect the owners of these sites but to reign in the possibility of a law-free-zone that some argue would be ideal for the Internet. I think that regulation of the Internet is very needed and I do not ever feel oppressed by the fact that I cannot post things that are deemed illegal by the United States government. That said, I do not see a problem with downloading mp3's off of the Internet, and that is a violation of property law, but I feel that illegal file-sharing is pretty much impossible to stop. It is hard to monitor all of the uploading and downloading of leaked albums and bootlegs of the latest summer blockbuster, it simply would take too much time to stop and if one site gets shut down, 50 others will sprout up and do the same thing. Like this website that provided links to sporting events all around the world, that proved very nice for someone who did not want to pay for the NFL Sunday Ticket package on DirecTV.

I did find it interesting though that over 13 billion dollars each year is used on cyber terrorism. That seems like way too much, but the Internet is now the hub of our existence and protecting the content on it is just as important as keeping Lady Liberty intact.

Is Netflix narrowcasting my movie selection too much?

The question posed in my title is the one thing that stuck with me the most after reading the second chapter for Sunstein's, Republic.com 2.0 and what this meant about me as a movie aficionado. I guess you could call me a movie snob, as I tend to lean toward a DVD viewing of Nolan's Memento, a movie I have seen multiple times over Scream 4 or any of the new releases to hit the theater. It is not to say that Memento is better than new releases, it is more a commentary on the state of movies currently as remakes, sequels, prequels, and reboots are all the rage in today's cinema. I would much rather watch a well-crafted movie from a respected filmmaker like Christopher Nolan, a director who can make Hollywood blockbusters (The Dark Knight, Inception) and films that would be the hot topic at Sundance (Insomnia, Memento). I like quality when I watch a movie and when I sit down and commit to a 2 hour viewing of a movie I want to get something out of it whether it intrigues my mind or simply allows an escape from the daily grind of life. But, sometimes I wonder if I miss out on things when I see a trailer and read some unfavorable reviews and thus totally swayed not to waste my time and watch something I already know is good and will prove to be enjoyable for me. I think that with Netflix, it knows my interests so well that it will eliminate the process by which I select my movies and I like that it gives me suggestions based on my previous viewings. That said, usually I will use my friends as a barometer as well to see whether or not I should see a movie. Friends that share my interests in movies will tell me about something they say recently and suggest I watch it and I will most likely because I respect their opinion and often we share the same ideas about what makes a movie good or great.

I think that after examining my habits on selecting a movie, I respect outside opinions instead of Netflix. The website Pajiba usually has a good idea about what will pique my interest, and I go to them for reviews on movies, TV, and general pop culture items and highly recommend it to all of the pop culture snobs out there. All things considered though, I think I will try to watch Scream 4, but definitely not for the $10 that the local cineplex will charge, but that is a topic for another blog post.

Daily Me - Republic 2.0

The idea of the Daily Me being a perfect utopian Internet experience is something that I feel that Yahoo! has tried to do with their homepage. I signed up for an account back ten or so years ago and it was very bare bones with the only things I used it for was email and fantasy baseball. However, in the next few years I found myself not visiting Yahoo! as much and then when I would, there were noticeable changes all around the website. They incorporated a new way of personalizing what was on your own user page. I took a little time to add a customized background on my page and added things like sports headlines for my favorite Dallas area teams, local movie showtimes, and local news headlines. It was a nice set-up because I could just browse the page and get content from each section, and if I wanted to add it was very convenient to go in and add Finance advice or job listings for the surrounding area when I needed to acquire a part time job. I decided to go back and visit the site and see how it had changed, and I was glad to see it had not changed as much I had at thought it would. I still had the American flags in the background with my local, sports, and entertainment news, and the movie listings were at the bottom and my fantasy baseball leagues on the top left of the page. It was pretty much exactly as I left it. It was nice to see, but I noticed that there were things that I forgot were on the page that were things I did not care for but left on and kept for future viewing. I thought this was very democratic of me, and the author of the book would think positively on this considering that he believes that a perfect utopian Me page threatens the democratic ideals of America. I don't think I will continue to visit My Yahoo! page, but it definitely led me to the idea that even at my young age I was being democratic with how I used my personalized page and it was neat to think I could be that way without even knowing.

Star Wars Resumes?

The obscenely virtual workspace that Pruitt and Barrett lay out in their article seems to be a glorified exaggeration to us now, but when taken with a grain of salt, it sheds a decent amount of light on the issue. The concept that information, ideas, and actions are instantly accessible via the internet, and a task that had previously taken someone like Austin Curry 4 hours to do now can be completed in less then 1 minute is a concept within mental reach for us. But will the space ultimately be diminished? I don’t think so. Similar to the new age library/education space discussion we had in class, I think that some sort of space will be important. An office is where we can delegate who is who and reinforce and elaborate, physically present structure that just simply cannot happen if everyone is sitting in the comfort of their own homes, putting on a ‘virtual suit.’ But when my parents were younger they couldn’t even imagine something as advanced as a Google Search. Regardless, I think the way that we communicate WITHIN the workspace will ultimately be more advanced, but we still need some form of physical structure or it could become increasingly difficult to define and make decisions about who is who and why they do what they do. Or maybe the way we form opinions will just be altered? Facebook is a good example of this integration of physical and virtual- it is successful because of the idea that there are actual people displaying and recording things that happen in the physical world. That’s why it is so appealing for so many people.

Another issue to touch on as an upcoming grad taking part in the grueling job hunt, is Pruitt and Barrett’s idea of the Virtual Resume. It has only been in the last few years (and now even more with the down economy) that we have relied completely on the internet to send out dozens and dozens of mindless resumes with the touch of a button. Making your resume stand out is key. The future of the resume is at our fingertips, but what will it be? Will it be what the article suggests, with a ‘Star Wars’ type of theme, or will it include video? Career Builder seems to think this type of connection doesn’t work, as they previously tried an experiment in 2007 allowing job seekers to post a video along with their resume, but have discontinued the service. Now some are suggesting that their will be no more resume, it will simply be a LinkdIn or Facebook profile page, that will act as a social networking tool as well as a ‘resume.’ This is already prominent today, as many companies ask in their postings to include a social networking link and often list it as ‘preferred.’ Will this hinder our job search or will it make it easier for HR to weed through based on simply what we look like, just as Austin Curry hired someone for his project based on the 'fluff' he liked, not simply on the on paper qualifications.

CVW: Pros and Cons

In Corporate Virtual Workspace, the authors have imaged the workplace of Austin, who works from home by “donning his customized computer clothing and logging in to the fiber optic network via his home reality engine.” The features CVW and PVW (Personal Virtual Workspace) could provide include a virtual office, face-to-face interaction with coworkers, file sharing, robot agents, and personalized workspace decoration. The reason why CVW will be a designated future, as the authors state, is the increase capability from the evolution of software technology, and the higher demand for long-scale projects and productivity.

Some of the ideas are very contributing to efficiency and productivity, such as the interactive documents, and the “portable” file “backpack.” However I find the accompanied features such as the fancy decorating of a PVW somehow annoying, because it increases a person’s emotional and aesthetical investment to his/her virtual reality, and therefore may give the corporation better control over its employee; moreover, it will be easy for the company who provides the PVW/CVW to assert manipulation over every users’ work and mental life.

On the other hand, the cost-cuttingness and “greenness” about CVW – a virtual workspace that eliminates traveling and commute –is one of the biggest advantages it can offer. Though I cannot see the CVW that Pruitt and Barrett imaged will be realize in the near future based on the current development of virtual technology. Most of the virtual workplace solution providers such as Citrix, Cisco, and IBM all emphasize the cost-efficient and environmentally friendly feature of virtual workspace.

CVW

In the article written by Steve Pruitt and Tom Barrett “Corporate Virtual Workspaces”, the idea of having an all virtual workplace is discussed. Pruitt and Barrett portray a world where individuals can roll out of bed, or still be in bed, and virtually be at work. To me, this does not seem as far-fetched as it might appear to be. We have had a lot of technological advances recently and with a growing number of individuals wanting to be able to work from home, this might be in the future faster than we expect. Today, we clearly do not have a virtual world for our employees but we do have a new technology, Skype, which allows for anyone to talk to anyone, who has a computer and webcam, at any time of the day. This is important to our society because it has made interviewing for positions a lot easier. With the poor economy not everyone is able to buy plane tickets, or even drive to different states with the rise of gas prices, so Skype makes interviewing easier. A lot of companies are looking into interviewing through the internet for an easier process. Although Skype does not allow you to have a “virtual” tour of the office or be at the office, it does present other options for previous challenges. There is other technology on the web that does allow individuals to have a virtual tour. An example of this would be relator websites, they are now making it easier for individuals to see what a house looks like by allowing them to take virtual tours.

Technological Work Place

The article, “The Corporate Virtual Workspace”, written by Steve Pruitt and Tom Barrett brought up some very interesting facts that I believe people should really consider. As stated in class, it is funny to even imagine that some of the things we discuss could actually take place, but if you think about it, a lot of the things people believe are going to happen in the future will occur. Look how far we have come today with technological advancements. These developments certainly will not stop. I believe that they will only speed up.

The article stated how people will work in a virtual workspace. A person does not have to leave their house in order to work. I feel like we can see this change already happening. Today, there are many technical advances, such as Skype, that create an environment where people can interact with others through video. In order to have a meeting with a person on the other side of the country, employees now just have to turn on their computers. Also, we can see from the new Iphones that people can have video connection with another individual hypothetically wherever they want. These cameras inside the phone create easy access to people when they need them and it does not matter where the people are located.

I truly believe that our society is moving towards this idea of virtual workplaces. Many companies are trying to create database systems where employers will be able to access all of the information they need to work anywhere. These creations are helping people have easy access and be able to work wherever they have the chance. For example, this past weekend I went to Chicago to look for an apartment, and I had a realtor show us places. Most of the time she was on her phone clicking around on stuff. What turns out was that due to her access of her phone, she had great connection with the head person working with her. They had kept track of the things we liked and disliked about apartments, and I believe that their business was more successful from having these easy connections between the two. They could easily change the list of apartments we made appointments to see due to our likes and dislikes. The owner already knew what apartment we would like to sign a lease on before we got there since she had sent him a message, and he already was able to set up parking information for us by the time we sat down to discuss stuff. These forms of new technology help people become more successful at work.