Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

January 24

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

Preparation (Assignment "Zero")

• Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?

In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

Readings

• John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

• Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders

• Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2

Optional Readings

• Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto (just the manifesto)

Class Discussion

The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: RobF 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--Sab 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Sab: THX SAB I agree that the internet has a bit more to go. It's only been around for a short while now. Just what is the revolution is perhaps the question? Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. Mvalerio 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mvalerio: Interesting comment on the occupy movement. I don't think the protests would have been as large without the internet. I noticed the local meida downplayed the protests. So, I take it as a social experiment, probably spawned by policy makers to test for echo. Progress seems to be working. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

With the spread of digital technologies there have been many changes in the social, cultural, political and economic aspects in the world. For example, in the social aspect, the necessity to be with others has been decreasing over time due to social media and smart devices. It comes to mind the now popular image of a group of people being together in a table but chatting in their smart phones, or the number of friends one can have from other countries. Likewise, in the political field we can say that the Internet propitiated the Arab Spring, helping countries in the Middle East like Egypt, Morocco and Libya to fight against their leaders. Finally, we have seen a cultural change in how people get informed and interpret information; before the digital technologies were part of our lives, people read only the local newspapers, but now people can read foreign newspapers, magazines, blogs and different sources of information, and judge by themselves whether inside their countries the news are being properly transmitted or not.Fabiancelisj 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fabiancelisj: I notice that even with the rise of the internet, websites do act like local media. For example, if I am using Netflix, shopping at Wal-Mart, eating at Subway, using Facebook and Windows, then it really doesn't matter where I am in the world. My data is still treated like I was in Boston, MA. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The largest changes I see are in expectations and perceptions of the world, especially resulting from the amount of, and lack of standardization and quality controls on information available. I will use the hypothetical example of a car company to illustrate: Because there is so much information available on this hypothetical car company, anything that happens, whether good or bad, has the potential to be widely publicized. Let's say they have a part that failed on some cars, and instituted a recall. In the past, if this was a small issue, it could be done quietly. With the easy access to information, what was previously a small recall, only impacting a few customers (inevitable with such a complex product), it may make big news. Or it may go unnoticed in the flood of information available, even if it was in reality, rather serious. If a potential customer is trying to decide on a car to buy, they may learn of this recall, and have second thoughts. This may be for legitimate reasons, or it may be something that is not the company's fault, and possibly other companies the customer is considering may even be much worse. But, seeing this safety recall, and becoming concerned, the potential customer may now purchase a car from a competitor. The information in an improper context may give the customer a false impression. It may also be something that is not normally considered important. A dashboard gizmo may be something most car companies don't normally consider as important, and doesn't undergo as rigorous as testing. A simple recall, and the problem is a non-issue safety wise. But that's not how the customer perceives it. A similar example can be found in employers screening job applicants with a web search. If there are say, embarrassing photos found of the applicant at a party in college, this may seriously harm the applicant's chances. All the while, the other 4 applicants may have even worse pictures, but they simply don't come up to the top of the search results. These types of possibilities change both how we perceive the world, and what we expect out of entities in the world, because of the mere possibility of data being discovered. BlakeGeno 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@BlakeGeno: Interesting point about globalization. I also think that the internet is working to "format" the globe. But in a positive way. So, even in poverty stricken neighbourhoods children are using websites such as Facebook to bridge the gaps between cultures. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think digital technologies' most significant effects so far have included fundamentally altering how people view themselves w/r/t society as a whole. Previously people viewed themselves as either being recognized or ignored by media that monopolized the civic discourse on many levels, now there are plenty of platforms for people to present themselves and be legitimated on their own terms. Tools and platforms for creating and distributing art (movies, music, podcasts etc.) certainly play a role in that, but so have social networking platforms, where folks can connect with other like-minded people and coordinate brick and mortar, face-to-face interactions (movie screenings, lectures, art shows, discussion groups, etc.)David Taber 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Taber: Yes. Blogs are great in allowing people to express themselves. Also, websites allow people to be who they want to be. And being able to connect with like-mined people is a great thing as well. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite the assigned articles we just read about some of the ways governments try to limit online activity and sharing, to me the most significant changes brought about by the spread of digital technologies are all related to freedom of information and the vast amount of information now accessible. This has political implications in both huge and radical ways (like the way Twitter is used as a organizing tool in many of the Arab Spring movements) and in smaller ways that fit within existing political structures but empower the average person much more (with the internet, I can check any American Senator's voting record, write a letter directly to my congresswoman, etc.). It also has cultural and social implications in the way ideas spread and are shared and altered. Regardless of where you are born or living, you can find people who hold almost any political/social/cultural/religious views online somewhere, and make that your primary community, rather than the one you physically live in. The sheer amount of information and connectedness made possible by the spread of digital technology are at the heart of most major changes based off that technology. AlexLE 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLE: As freedom of information becomes avilable to citizens, I think that this becomes an added benefit for society. When it comes to corporations sharing information, then we don't always know what is out there. If only there were a stronger universal standard. For example, wehn I go to a box store they want a lot of information. What I buy, or rent is all there. But, getting a hold of this information can be a challenge. Updating it, or requesting information to be removed can also be a challenging thing. Governments seem to allow citizens great control of their personal information. However, corporations are another thing. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom. Users have the ability to post any piece of information they wish using digital technologies. This platform is free and happens in real time causing an immediate impact. Put to good use these, digital technologies such as Twitter can connect high school friends in a matter of minutes. Likewise, the same communication method could be used to post a video bullying classmates for being different. The impact of both situations is immediate and with real consequences. The question remains how much policing is necessary to continue maintaining an accessible environment. HopeS 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@HopeS: Yes, users are allowed to post whatever they want to. However, it is becoming the norm to post more and more. And, if you don't then you are coerced. So, this is a juxtaposition of freedom. If I am forced to give up information in order to be cool, and otherwise nobody wants to talk to me, then that's not a good thing for freedom. Just Johnny 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Perfect enforcement" by the government utilizing the internet and the growing number of tethering devices is a an area of interest of mine. One would be wise to question the extent to which we are likely to be monitored by the government, knowingly or unknowingly, as technology grows. In addition, I am also interested in the drastic political change that social media is capable of spurring. I am interested in learning more about the extent to which governments may be involved, now and in the future. Lastly, I would like to explore potential innovative educational opportunities that may be created in developing nations with the advent of virtual classrooms and online academies. Cfleming27 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cfleming27: I wonder if social media is more responsible for suggesting behavior? I can't help but think it is part of social climate change in the cloud. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace treats the internet as if it were a public good. However, it does not consider that the Internet is not free and therefore it can and will be regulated to a certain extent. Governments will seek to regulate the Internet on some issues, while corporations that subsidize news, Web content, and even access - via mobile devices will censor the net on other issues. The remaining "free space" of the Internet and pressure that the public at large can apply to advertisers and commercial interests that build out the infrastructure access to the web, is the space that will be left over for this utopian "social contract" that will enforce Web behavior. Demands for increased access and less regulation will be met with the challenges of governments and entities that will provide that infrastructure, perhaps shaping the Internet in a very different way, and this is what I see as the next big challenge of the digital age. ˜˜˜˜ Rberk2012 20:27 January 23, 2012

@Rberk2012: I wonder if it a bit of a warning. Here is the internet, the last great hope for freedom, and it is slowly being enveloped by corporate control. The 1990's were great. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the most significant change brought forth by the internet has been the globalization of the marketplace. First, firms now have the capacity to do business without any real barriers, and in real-time. A small business in Germany, for instance, can now conduct business with a small business in the United States. Communication barriers have been eliminated. Firms can communicate with each other cost-effectively and immediately through things like Skype/VOIP and email. This also holds true for the business-to-customer relationship with the substantial role eCommerce plays for the majority of the population. Secondly, I believe the dissemination of information is another significant change. Questions and curiosities that may have taken a vast amount of personal time and research can now be accessed almost instantaneously via a cell phone with apps like Wikipedia. Similarly, one can even attend school without ever stepping foot into a classroom. JeffKimble 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@JeffKimble: Shopping certainly has been a significant change. I remember hotels, car rentals, flight tickets, and so forth were originally much cheaper online. Now, it seems as though everyone is encouraged to purchase things online. In some instances, it is even easier to buy something online and have it delivered to yuor door instead of going to the mall. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

With digital technologies, access to information is available for everyone to access immediately. This can have both positive and negative consequences, depending on your vantage point. Consider WikiLeaks.org: For the government, it represents a gross breach of national security, but for concerned citizens, such organizations provide a public service, forcing the government to be more transparent. This raises a number of important questions regarding freedom of speech, privacy, regulatory controls, and even third parties on the web that host or store popular/unpopular content on their servers. Who has the authority to say what content is appropriate for public consumption? Anyone with access to the internet can publish anything they want, and unlike WikiLeaks, may make no attempt at redacting sensitive material. As Zittrain points out, the internet was designed to be “generative”; it was created to “accept any contribution”. Should the government have the power to censor such content, even if it stored outside of U.S. jurisdiction? If so, where does this censorship end? Joymiller 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Joymiller: I just have to comment that not all information is available to everyone all of the time. I wonder how someone gets that information back once it's out there. If someone puts it out there, there doesn't sem to be much that can be done. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Instant consumption of accessible information in an international context. Users have the ability to obtain as well as post unfiltered real-time data through an assortment of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. As the speed of information increases through these media sources, it becomes more difficult to verify the legitimacy of these sites. Readers must process the unfiltered information analytically and are obligated to perform own due diligence. Big business and government have acknowledged the use of social media as a tool to create a more efficient marketing plan through sentiment analysis. Szakuto 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Szakuto: Well, I would have to agree. The stupidity of the masses does seem to permiate all of ass culture. Sports, and Justin Bieber. But, it is better than not having drinking water or food, right? So, there's a bit of a sacrifice. As long as you know how things work, that puts you ahead of the rest already. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in the digital divide from generational, economic, and geographic perspectives. When I was living in South Africa, the impact of slow, unreliable, and expensive Internet controlled by an entrenched monopoly had a very noticeable effect on my organization's ability to meet international expectations and on the degree to which people were willing and able to interact with new technologies. As certain regions blaze ahead digitally, it seems that other regions will only fall further behind the rapidly increasing expectations for connectivity, productivity, and innovation. I’m reminded of a section of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion (which I admittedly haven’t read recently so apologies for mangling this) where he discusses a window in the the 1970s where Africa had an opportunity to be competitive with Asia in manufacturing and the textile industry but, missing its opportunity, was unable to find a competitive toehold later resulting in severe economic ramifications. I’m interested in exploring how disparities in opportunity and access can be addressed and how the egalitarian, democratic ideals of many Internet users can be leveraged to reach out to people who are currently excluded from the system. Aditkowsky 02:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Aditkowsky: I wonder if this is a leveling off effect that will eventually stabalize. Or, is it more like Wal-Mart sucking the money out of the community and displacing it to some other region of the globe. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The most significant changes brought on by digital technologies have been the increased ease-of-access to information around the world, the result of which has been a domino effect still taking place. The transfer of technology that is studied in economics, where a lesser developed country gains from the investment of a richer one, is taking place in the form of the spread of information around the world. This mass transfer has triggered milestone events in academics, economics, science and government. Significant challenges that may come from these rapidly developing technologies will be a divide on the interpretation of what they were developed for ("social" news vs traditional news media) and ultimately if they can be used to improve the quality of life for the majority of people. Brendanlong 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Brendanlong: Right. How do we deal with this? Communication goes both ways. But, unless there is someone there to facilitate an understanding then there is really not that much of an issue. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the most significant changes that digital technologies brought on us, is how we access information we are looking for. In the past, we relied on books and libraries to provide us with any kind of information even though most of it was outdated, but today we can gain access to any type of information within minutes and information that is up to date and always updating. With this, of course we have noticed challenges it has given us. We cannot know what information is reliable, and which is not. Erzhik 11:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Erzhik: I think the biggest concern is the idea that there is something out there that we don't have any control over. Who has what information about you? And how does that affect your life? If someone doesn't like you, can they seek revenge on you? What options do you have when you don't even know who to contact or what agency has? Interesting. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the recent years, advances in the digital technologies have changed the world communicate and the way we live. Information are accessible at our palm. It has decrease the distance of time and space as communication is now very convenient with the creation of smartphones and the various social media people use to keep in touch with each other. We also moved from being passive consumers to active creators of news which were not available for us before. The interactions we experience through the technology also created a new common ground for us to understand different culture and people from all around the world. However, the advantages of these connections also bring into light many questions. For examples, how those informations are used and where to draw the line of privacy in regards to what we share. Selina2012 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Selina2012: Again, access to information. Who has what, and how do we control or privacy? At the same time, we are begining to use the internet more, as it is becoming an everyday necessity. So, how do we deal with it when our ISP is recording wvery mouse click. Where is the information going to, and so forth. This brings up new opportunities for nre rules, new agencies, and new industries to emerge within capitalist societies. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that people’s lives have changed drastically over the past years because of the Internet. From my point of view, I don’t need to go out and buy a newspaper to know what is going on, but simply turn on my computer and go on Wikipedia or any news website. Another example concerns communication; I live in Italy and yet I can follow lectures and be enrolled in a degree program without having to physically be in the classroom. A few years ago I interned at the District Attorney’s Office, and among other duties I was asked to search for criminal history of certain suspects; what I thought would be a lengthy task, involving thousands of paper files, actually took me less than a minute by accessing a specific online database. In conclusion, I feel that digital technologies have made life easier and have allowed people with limited resources to gain knowledge by simply surfing the web. Emanuele 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Emanuele

@Emanuele: While increased efficiency is something that comes with the internet and computers, the question still remains about access to information, accuracy, and so forth. So, while the value may increase in databases, there is also the question of accuracy and access to information. If there is an agency out there with information on someone that is untrue, how long is it stored? As with social media, this becomes an interesting topic. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While Arab Spring and Wikileaks immediately jump to mind when I think of major events and changes that were enabled by digital technologies, only recently did those events became a real force. While the freedom to immediately access an abundant amount of information (and information overload) in many countries is certainly a significant change brought on by digital technologies, the community should be seriously considered as well. I think our sense of community, for good and bad, has changed with the advent of digital technologies. You can be connected to so many people over the Internet in an instant and your community is independent of your geographical location. Examples include blogging, social platforms like Facebook, MMOs like WoW and Call of Duty, Quora, Reddit, and Internet Relay Chat (and tons more!). Aberg 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Aberg: Yes I think that these platforms do have a major impact in the lives of citizens. As part of a larger picture, I also think that these websites are a function of media control. While they may be useful in connecting people, that is not the only usage of these sites. As part of socialization in democratic nations, the web is certainly an element of mass media control. Just Johnny 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The most profound challenges visible today regarding the advent of dynamic digital technologies seems to be the wanton attempts at futilely regulating internet access and use, (e.g. Stop Online Piracy Act, [SOPA], Protect Intellectual Property Act, [PIPA]), and a topic that Cory Doctorow refers to as "The Coming War on General Computation" (a topic that the introduction of Jonathan Zittrain's book, which has conveniently been assigned as required reading for this course, hints at discussing in some depth). The debate on legislature like SOPA and PIPA arrives at a question quite familiar to the citizens of a post 9/11 society (Patriot Act, NDAA 2012), should individual freedoms, privacy, or constitutional rights be violated in the interest of the rights of copyright holders or government interests? The answer, it seems, should of course be no. The debate, however, is somehow being held on the floors of the United States Congress, and Senate. With regard to general purpose computers, the discussion circles around special purpose devices. Zittrain calls the iPhone and the XBox "sterile appliances tethered to a network of control." Perhaps he's right, as mobile devices recently took heat for hosting key logging/location monitoring software made to fit on your cute little smartphone by Carrier IQ. Similarly Sony took heat for prosecuting hacker George "Geohotz" Hotz and Alex Egorenkov "graf_chokolo" of "fail0verflow" for installing Linux onto the Playstation 3 after Sony removed their "Other OS" support. The topic under debate here, should individuals be able to use something they purchased in legal ways to do whatever they see fit? Ultimately the challenges we face are indicative of the greatest advent to come out of the Technological Revolution, the ability for individuals to disseminate information and rally support against corporate and government interests.

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011. Video. Web 1/24/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011 Transcript. Web 1/24/2012.

https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md

Kravets, David. "Carrier IQ Explains Secret Monitoring Software to FTC, FCC" Wired 14 Dec 2011. Web 1/24/2012.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/carrieriq-ftc-fcc/

Wikipedia. "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz." Web 1/24/2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz

Zittrain, Jonathan The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Introduction. 2008 Yale University Press. HTML Version. Web 1/24/2012.

http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6

BSK342 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@BSK342: Intersting comments. I think that corporations need to be reminded of that, and it shouldn't be citizens having to keep them in check. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that digital technologies have increased the pace of life. For instance, a letter sent by original mail takes much longer to receive than one sent by email. This means that you can (and are expected to) reply much sooner too. Further, I think that digital technologies require a different set of skills for various professions. I am originally from The Netherlands and used to be a lawyer there. I find that it is not not only important how much you know, but also how fast you can find something, e.g. case law, rules and regulations or any informaton about a person or a company. The internet, but also various other (digital) databases, have made the latter much easier. The ability to use these digital technologies have become very important. Digital technologies have also a big impact on maintaining relationships. I live and have lived on another continent and in a different time zone for almost two years now, but thanks to Skype, Facebook, Linkedin, Whatsapp and email, I am still very much involved in and informed on the lives of my friends, family and former colleagues overseas.Marjolein Siegenthaler 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Marjolein Siegenthaler: I have to agree with you. Although, I think it was the Chinese who originally started on this 3 year cycle concept. Before everything was manufactured in China, most democratic societies were accustomed to the old imperialist notion that a person takes care of what they deem as important to them. So, we're slowly losing that, along with other key things. But, going back to this idea -- yes, certainly, corporations want to sell things faster and more. The computer I have now is at least 100 years old in terms of computer years by now. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the social sphere, I would say that digital technology has brought people closer together because it is so much easier to communicate by email. There are even fast and, it seems, often successful services for mates to find each other. In all of the social, cultural, and political areas, I think it is easier to sway the masses with trends and fashions, and many people easily follow along with whatever is portrayed as the in thing. News reaches people more quickly, and can easily be manipulated, depending on who is in control of the media. On the other side of the coin, social media such as Face Book, Skype, and Youtube make it possible for many opinions to be aired publicly, not only the voice of the news media. These capabilities were not so readily available before the spread of digital technologies. Trade and commerce can be transacted much more quickly than ever before over the internet.Mike 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mike: Yes. YouTube used ot be awesome. I would spend hours on it looking at stunts. Now, the front page is full of advertisements and lame vloggers. Same with MySpace. Such a shame. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite remiss if I did not mention the numerous freedoms that digital technology, the internet included, provides. Not only is communication enabled on a greater, more accessible, real-time platform, but also the freedom of the content of that communication. While these freedoms have granted exceptional benefits, ranging from market-level trading (as is done between the European, East Asian, and American Markets), to revolutionary movements (the Arab Spring), they also come with drawbacks. These drawbacks are based upon the legal standing of communication in those countries where it can be an issue. Once digital technology is broken down to its basic form, it is merely a means of communication, no different than a print newspaper, a poster board, a phonograph, or a TV or radio signal. All of these forms of communication have limits on their communication, either through decency laws, copyright protection, or FCC regulation. The internet, or any digital medium for that matter, does not necessarily fall under a specific, current legal code, particularly because of the anonymity of the internet, including the anonymity of nationality. Unfortunately old legislation that is applied to current digital medium was written for tangible, real items, rather than virtual items as a digital medium. This creates the problem of controlling or regulating that medium to conform to established standards for non-digital medium, and unfortunately, that is increasingly difficult given the propensity of the digital world to exist outside of borders, and outside of jurisdictions.Nthib 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nthib: Interesting that you mention how the digital world exists outside of borders. While there is still the physicla world, I think it is becoming more merged. I also think that nations are workig towards this, as to solidify people in their home. Otherwise, we have this distancing effect on citizens, which is not very good for maintaining a functioning society. If everyone leaves in their minds, then the society becomes non-existent. So, in order to maintain the functional nature of the society, there must be a strengthening of real world and online world mobility. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To even begin to quantify the changes that technology has brought to our lives, good and bad, would be an enormous task. But, from a largely legal perspective, I would say that the greatest change in our societies and lives is our understanding of privacy. For ever piece of digital technology that we enjoy there are potential losses to our privacy. Right at this moment I am withing three feet of three different machines that could be used to not only track my location at any time, but could also be monitored to trove my emails, text messages, and phone calls. These "not really consented to" examples are only one aspect. In addition, we now live in a time when even the privacy afforded by something being in the past is lost. How many 15 year old girls out there will post racy pictures of themselves on facebook or tweet idiotic nonsense and have it reappear in decades to come because of the potentially indelible nature of the internet and all information fed to it. Also, we live in a time when almost any aspect of a person's life could be affected by their credit score, but it is at greater risk of violation than s preacher's daughter with a six pack. All our money and personal information is becoming virtual, yet there is no real protection against that being used; if someone wants it they will get it. It worries me that the risk of all this change in legal privacy is not entirely a reality to us yet. Cmartis 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cmartis: Yes. Privacy is huge. I think there is an obvious ethical concern. Let's examine a site like Facebook, which is basically run by a child. There are established norms, but the child runs in and doesn't care. So, those already there have to say "hold it, partner. Slow down." A kid in a candy store is apt to grab at everything there. Of course, the investors are depending on this, because large corporations want to see social norms chaged to better suit business. However, back to this idea of ethical concerns -- yes. I think that people should have more contorl over their personal information. For sure. Even if it is being held outside of their home region. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Along with all the good uses of technology available today, we cannot overlook that shady people and their organizations utilize those same tools to harm society and cultures. One example is Child trafficking which has grown in part as a result of the advances in technology and the use of the internet which vehicle makes the demand market grow tremendously and easily obtainable by traffickers and buyers worldwide. Secondly Auctions are held in live mode where a buyer or a john can view children’s’ photographs and make the deal all via his/her computer. Thirdly, child sex tourism is one of the world's largest industries, which also feeds off of electronic communications and child trafficking continues to grow rapidly, where it has surpass the illegal gun trade and perhaps it will surpass the illegal drug trade. It has become integrated into the economy of many countries. However it underscores the fact that child trafficking and slavery truly represent the trading of children as tinny commodities whom are traded for money and profitability increases with each trade, and the vicious cycle continues when advances in technology fallen into the wrong hands. Sophia 11:51, 24 january 2012 (UTC)

@Sophia: This is a concern. Fortunatley there are ways to track ISPs and so forth. However, it doesn't always seem to work the way it should or when we need it. Murphy's law. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind is easy accessibility to information, how we quickly receive and disseminate data, and communicate with one another enabling new forms of human interaction through various devices, social media, news sites, etc . Also, new platforms that provide millions to rally against badly written legislation (SOPA/PIPA) or support various causes in developing countries, and voice political concerns/opinions that can now be heard on a global scale. As digital technologies have increased, we’ve seen a dramatic shift in how we use and link traditional communications such as mobile and TV, driving necessary recalibrations in advertising, commerce, agriculture, business, education, health, etc. It’s quite remarkable that a 19 yr old can start a blog from a remote location (parent’s house in Scotland) and turn it into one of the world’s largest news websites with 50+ million monthly page views and a substantially growing business with 50+ employees in just a short time. Or how the continuous spread of online education efforts are wearing down traditional views on schooling. Or how Google has completely changed the way we seek information and Facebook has revolutionized how we’re connected through social media becoming one of the world’s most powerful and universal platforms across many countries, ages, races, etc. Or how a 26 yr old professor is using machine-learning programs similar to what Google/Facebook uses to develop AI programs that uncover how genes lead to disease. These digital breakthroughs are reshaping and redefining industries, cultures, the way we interact, and changing our way of life around the globe.JennLopez 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@JennLopez: Yes. Access to information is important. There is nothing more annoying than this. Of course, if it were up to me I would purge everything in the cookie bank periodically. There is nothing more annoying than being controlled. Views should be expressed. When it corsses over into the real world, this is what I have always had a problem with becaus eit impedes and controls behaviour in a destructive way. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I like to think about two big changes Internet provoked in communication. The first one is how it keeps turning tangible media obsolete, providing instant access to content that had to be transported. For books, as example, you have to go to a bookstore and if it was out of stock had to wait to arrive, something that changed to an instant buy behavior. The other point is how it changed the way we communicate with our family. We use to spend money on long-distance phone calls, that now are made using Skype. Not only this, the fact that you are not paying for each minute makes a huge impact on conversations, for some people making them longer chats.Andrepase 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Andrepase: Yes, I think that the long tail is great. I can purchase a book or a song that I used to listen to. But, also I think that it is beginning to merge with the real brick and morter world. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the most significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies are the advent of tools for increased global communication. This includes e-mail, video conferencing, and social networking sites such as Facebook. E-mail has opened up a realm of possibilities for faster, easier, and more effective ways of communication. To provide an anecdotal example, people use email to communicate with everyone from their bosses to their grandparents. Moreover, other tools including video conferencing softwares like Skype and social networking websites like Facebook have revolutionized the way people connect on the internet, and de facto in the words of Mark Zuckerberg make the world a “more open and connected place.” Qdang 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Qdang: I think that these technologies are a real way in which we are seeing the real world and online world merge. I remember that my parents, up until only a decade ago used to tell me to call them. Now they use email. Although, they still don't use Skype. It just seems like once a new technology comes along, the old one is obsolete. By the time most people figure out how to program a VCR, it is replaced by something else. So most people don't bother to learn how to use things because the technology moves to quickly. But I do agree in that technology has revolutionized how we communicate. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When I think the most significant changes that digital technologies brought to us I automatically think how we changed our thoughts about how we use all the information that we receive and how this spread with a tremendous force. Now he have easily and instantaneously access to any information in any place around the world and this changed our feelings because now the people feel more powerful to use this information. Nowadays, when we receive an important information that has an impact on our lives, we feel powerful to do something, pro or against it. This can be seen in small and big scale, from city issues to big discussions as recently MegaUpload case and SOPA.Priscila 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Priscila: Yes I think that things have becomre more istant -- at the pace of business. Which is a good thing in some instances. Although, I tend to be more comfortable with existing social norms. I don't think I would enjoy being forced to post onto a social media website every day. That would go against its use. For me, it's about freedom of expression. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet has changed our lives in many different ways from how we receive information to how we purchase goods and interact with one another. But the internet has had a tremendous impact on politics, both in how we receive political news and how we can support political campaigns.

People can almost instantaneously learn of a political event, whether that event is a controversial remark by a politician in an interview, a new stance on an issue, or commentary made by the news media on a debate or speech. Our ability to quickly access information from the internet allows the court of public opinion to change rapidly in reaction to a political event.

The internet has also affected how politicians can raise funds for a campaign. While traditional fundraising methods such as dinners and mail-in donations will continue, the internet has allowed politicians to raise large funds in short periods of time from a swatch of individual donors and often donations are no more than a couple hundred dollars.Jimmyh 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jimmyh: Yes. I am still waiting for online voting, or electronic voting. I think that this will probably be coming within the next hundred years or so. If this happens, then we will probably see more media control to sway public opinion. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the noteworthy socio-culture change by digital technologies is that it has brought brought the world closer to each other. There is more appreciation of differences in societies and culture through sharing of news and knowledge by internet and media. A person sitting in Asia is now more aware of western culture than he/she was 20 years ago. Politically, it has helped get more information about the political figures - both good and bad information. Politicians in turn can reach out to more people through emails,twitter and social online networks. From the perspective of economy, it has started the whole wave of globalization and off shoring. And through that wave, it has indirectly, increased per capita income of people in developing countries. For example, Brazil, Russia, India and China have been a big beneficiary. It has created some new challenges as well. It has become easier for people to hurt companies and governments through hacking. Terrorist can connect with each other more easily. It is easy to spread unrest in a country through online networks. This unrest can be viewed as positive or negative impact depending upon your political beliefs. Pgaur 04:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Pgaur: Yes, I think that many people are becoming more dependant on the internet for commuication. In a lot of ways, without it we are lost. As people bcome more dependant on the internet, society is also changing. This, in turn is changing the political structure of cuntries. However, I do not see it happening in a way that can be easily controlled yet. Mass collective decision making seems to be more like the wheather in that it fluctuates. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The web has afforded an access and visibility of information that had been previously unachievable. Content—now digitized as bits in a decentralized system—becomes reproducible and is potentially seen by far greater audiences. This technological shift has allowed for far more expansive spheres of production, circulation, and interaction. A young kid can quickly shoot a video using a digital camcorder, share the clip with an audience with YouTube, and interact with fans he may never have even anticipated (and I am not one of them, Justin Bieber). The top-down, gatekeeper-ish broadcast models of old media are at least threatened by this disruption. What web users may understand as enabling productive possibilities and participatory culture, has also been derided as the reason for copyright infringement, cheapened and superfluous content, as well as several dying industries.

But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. Michaels 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Michaels: Yes, there is a distinct connection betwen nline world and digital housing facilities. I recently checked out the cyberbunker, which looks amazing. Something to aspire towards as a more develped website, no doubt. However, we are starting to see more of a connection between physical housing structures and data servers, and the online world. Geographic ads seems to be part of this ever increasing control mechanism that is bridging the gap between virtual and real world environments. Just Johnny 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very crucial issue particularly when we mention human rights. Just Johnny 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)