Bridging the Great (Digital) Divide

This week in class, we had the interesting discussion on the digital divide.  Many of the articles discussed brought up many different methods to "digital divide." However, all of these articles seemed to define the divide differently.  I think that until we truly understand the entirety of this divide, the problem can not be solved in its entirety.

The Divide Exists on Many Levels

According to the video clip, Rheingold states that the divide is becoming less and less a hardware issue, but an issue of use of that hardware.  While I do think this is a valid point, I also believe that the hardware part of the issue still exists... and its a larger problem than many make it out to be.

I believe that to tackle this problem in it's entirety, high-speed internet access must be made completely available to anyone who desires it.  It can't be forced upon anyone.  However, as seen in the rural and urban divide videos, not everyone who currently desires high speed internet access currently has access to it.

Once this is accomplished, then the issue becomes similar to what Rheingold describes in his video.  I don't know of a perfect solution to this yet, other than time, experience, and training.  The coming years will show if this divide closes or not.

Credibility vs Advertising

Sadly, many celebrities are giving into the financial pressure of accepting payments for plugging products through social media devices. Companies have recently been seeking out celebrities with large followings online to advertise their products. I find this particularly annoying and it ruins celebrity's credibility.

I feel that the plugging of products in social media is extremely contrived. I have a difficult time believing that the online followers of the celebrities truly believe that they are promoting these items as a result of personal satisfaction with them. I have to remind my self that I may not be the target audience.

Zhuo's article brought up many arguments showing the problems with abusing one's "anonymous" status on the internet.  He showed how the phenomenon of the "internet troll" has become a problem in certain online communities and claims that were the internet less anonymous, these problems would not exist.  Zhuo is also a product design manager for Facebook.  His connection with Facebook proves that there may be a slight bias to the article.

In my opinion, removing the anonymous factor from the internet would cause exponentially more issues than in it's current anonymous state.  Right now, people who are unable to always voice their opinion in real life can voice it online.  They can also connect with others who share similar thoughts and values. Forcing identity online would decrease the it's use and usability.  We must continue to search for other methods of dealing with the "anonymous" problems, rather than getting rid of it all-together,

A Revolution of Change

During the first portion of this past week's readings, the Gladwell article on social revolution and social media was brought into light.  Gladwell use the 1960's era civil rights revolution as a lens to compare all current and future revolutions.  He clearly believes that a "true social revolution" can not occur via social netoworking, as some described with the Iran political uprisings.

However, I think Gladwell, and his critics, fail to recognize that social revolution and the way people participate in them has changed.

The use of twitter, facebook, and other social media devices has greatly increased the number of participants in these movements.  However, it has also created a larger variance in the degree of one's participation.  One no longer has to plan a "sit-in" or other form of peaceful protest in order to accomplish significant tasks on the social and political battlefield.  These social media devices are merely tools that help the cause.  This benefits of these tools will be seen today and into the future.

Google: Nefarious Intentions?

Google has been collecting what seems like limitless amounts of information to benefit their business model.  As discussed in class, Google has implemented many different systems which are speculated to be for information collection purposes.  Some of the services have been proven to not be solvent.  Services such as Google 411 and YouTube actually lose money for Google.  However, they must be beneficial for Google in other ways since they continue to be available.

Another prime example is the Google Book service.  Google has been scanning books and making them searchable.  On the surface, it would appear that Google's plan with this service is to attract web traffic in order to profit off of advertising.  However, some speculate that Google's intentions for this project is to amass as many examples of human language as possible in order to to analyze it and create natural language algorithms to improve search functions.

Many people worry that with all this information Google is collecting, nefarious intentions could be carried out.  I don't see Google acting in the manner anytime soon, but I do recognize it as a valid fear.
 

Days of Controlled Internets are Upon Us

     I find it funny that many see issues with the infringement of net neutrality further down the road.  I believe that these days have already arrived, and this is going to be a never ending struggle.  Rheingold discusses how the original internet architect's intent was to create a network that connected networks together... a fully distributed system.

     However, today, governments and internet service providers are desiring more and more control over their internet users.  ISP's are now utilizing a technique known as "deep packet inspection" which allows them to observe what types of data and data transfer are taking place with their customers.  They can then use this knowledge in order to "throttle back" or even disable services that customers are using.

     One of the largest targets of internet service providers are the peer-to-peer(P2P) networks, such as bitTorrent.  This network allows users to send data to each other directly, rather than through a centralized server.  This network is perfectly legal and can be used that way.  However, many use the network to send a receive pirated material.  The ISP's claim that this is the reason they specifically interrupt these networks.  However, many speculate the real reason is that they do not approve of the required bandwidth of P2P networks.  Similar "throttling back" has been seen for online game users as well.

     Perhaps, the only thing that will protect the neutrality of the internet is legislation that mandates it.  However, the very ones that want control over it would be the ones that legislate it.  We're out of luck, I guess?

"There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some Exchange Students  in the class. One day while the class was in the lab  the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his  back and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to  overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild  pigs?"
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The  young man said this was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a  suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find  it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used  to coming every day, you put a Fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to  eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd." http://www.squidoo.com/howtocatchapig

This story refers to a government's slide into communism, but is it too far-fecthced to describe what is happening with consumer privacy?  Perhaps this is a bit extreme, but then again, we are in uncharted territory.   

It seems that in this day and age, we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum:

We freely give up our privacy to companies whose desire to profit in return for a service, which is often free and "beneficial" to us.

This creates a conflict of interests.  In order for us as the consumer to receive services that we desire, we must give up personal information.  This can include some services we desire, such letting netflix record movies we enjoy watching in order to provide selected related movies that the also might enjoy.  However, as seen in recent events, this "anonymous" data can actually be linked back to a specific person using de-anonymizing algorithms.

There are also companies that use our information in ways we may not approve of.  However, we still freely give these companies personal information.  In example, we observe how Google Ads uses our search data and website history to "better serve" us with advertisements that better suit our interests.  This is a clear example of how a company lures you in with a free service in order to profit off of the information they receive from the use of the service.

As long as free services, such as web searches and internet browsers are available, the companies will always have the desire to collect and profit of of user's personal data.  I see in the future an increase in company's hands reaching into our personal lives.  As long as the free feed is out there for the taking, we will continue you be fenced in.