Do New Media Technologies Connect or Divide Society

My theme for this blog has been, “Do new media technologies connect or divide communities.” To answer this question I have a few other questions. What is a community? Webster’s Dictionary defines a community in many different ways. I want to look at the definition of community as society at large. If a community is society then what does a society need to function? Society needs a future so education of their children is important. Society needs government or some means of law enforcement. Society needs some way of communicating on small and large scales. Finally society needs some view of confidentiality. The last question is what does it mean to connect a society? I define this as the majority of society being unified in he means of communicating, their view of education, involvement in government, and their view of privacy.

New media technologies have opened the way for communication to flow. Vinny Cahill and Siobhan Clarke claim that we live in a truly connected society, because “3G cellular data networks have literally brought the Internet to the man in the street at broadband speeds”. This has connected society in means of communication on both scales. It brings global news to almost anyone at anyplace at anytime. It also allows individuals to have one-on-one conversations. The internet has become the means of communication. VoIP is taking over land lines, and cell phones are needed to be considered in the loop.

Steps to government involvement are increasing. Facebook has allowed people to coordinate protests as well as get the word out about campaigns. Many states have implemented electronic voting machines, yeah no more dangling or dimpled chads. Another step that is being considered is vote by SMS. In Estonia, the parliament passed a bill allowing its voters to cast their ballots via SMS by 2011. What an idea, for security they are issuing chips or codes that match them with their registration. I believe that would increase voting by millions if you could just text your vote in, no lines.

Education is extremely important for a society to progress. Formal education brings the majority of society to the same level. New media technologies have pushed the envelope in where students can learn and what they can learn. The Internet and global communication has put education into the hands of the students. They can connect to schools online or they can Google a topic to find out about any subject. It has brought a learn-at-your-own-speed connection to every person who has access to these resources.

Finally the perception of privacy changes with each generation. It seems that society generalizes that we as a society are willing to give up privacy for convenience. But as Gary Marx states in “Privacy and technology” this is a fallacy. Technology has given ways to increase privacy. PGP and RSA encryption are the two strongest encryption algorithms out there. VPN (virtual private networks) also give secure connections for transferring data across the Internet. As technology increases loop holes for intrusion of privacy, it also finds new ways of protecting the information from the intruders.

New media technology is connecting society, globally and locally. And it will continue to do so with each passing generation.

For full articles:
Cahill & Clarke

Estonia SMS voting

Advertising The Way to Pay: NOT!

For class we read multiple articles about advertising and the web. On of the more thought provocative ones was called “The End of Free Lunch – Again”. It discussed how relatively few companies are able to make money off of Internet advertising. Google is the best example of making it big from advertising, but it is one of the few elite Internet companies to do so. Google also makes its money by selling services and collecting royalties. Prime examples of this are the E-commerce shopping cart, which brings in approximately 2% of the transaction cost; Google Site Search, costs at a minimum $100 per year; and Google Earth Enterprise Edition, costs around $400.

We live in a capitalistic society. You can make as much money as your product and services are worth, but not more. Many companies choose to sell their products and services for less; this dropped their value to its current state. Now many of these companies are beginning to charge for their services and are making very little to no profit at all. They had a large user base when they were free, but customer loyalty isn’t enough to make their clients pay for what they got for free.

A really cool site in my mind I have been keeping track of has been qtrax.com. Qtrax is a music distribution site that gives music away. It is entirely free and legal, having signed contracts with three of the biggest recording companies in the US. Qtrax’s model is to pay royalties for the music played from advertising on their site. From the discussion in class I wonder how long this site will remain like this. I am super excited to use Qtrax, but is it able to sustain itself from advertising alone. Since music is an extremely important part of society I feel that it will be able to survive on advertising revenue.

The next thing I think of is open source. Open source vendors don’t charge for their software and their sites aren’t riddled with advertisements. Open source projects are sustained by donations and don’t use advertising at all. Many of the programs I use are open source. I don’t donate but I do produce open source programs and I beta test many programs as well. I can’t support them monetarily but I do what I can to help move the project forward.

Society is already divided by those who use the web for purchases and products, but that gap is getting more and more one sided as the older generation is shrinking in numbers. Another gap that is more dominant is those who pay versus those who find the free alternative. There is a large group that sits in the middle who are willing to use, but don’t want to look for and learn, the free alternative. Will this divide remain or will it come together if more companies discontinue their free services? Will the middle ground people move towards one of the extremes if there are less “Free Lunches”. I hope Facebook, and Qtrax don’t start charging.

Ubiquitous Computing: Future of Man

In class we discussed Ubiquitous Computing (UbC). UbC is the seamless integration of technology into society. Computers and computer software will be everywhere, and accessible by anyone at any time. Computers will be so integrated they won’t be noticed unless they aren’t there.

The weekly reading was “Ubiquitous Computing” by R. Jason Weiss and J. Philip Craiger. Weiss and Craiger argue that UbC will make life easier for both the computer savvy people as well as those who have very little interaction with computers. They say that currently to use computer you must know how to use it, but with UbC the computer will teach you how to use it. I find that this divides society into those who know how and those who don’t. However with as much integration as UbC hopes to achieve, everyone will have to learn to use the technology implemented to be apart of society. This will connect society, at least in using the same technology.

One of the really cool things about UbC, is that it is not too far away. In class we saw a presentation of a technology called the sixth sense. It was a camera, projector, and a top of the line cell phone, connected together to bring the Internet to any where we go. It was amazing to see. The demonstrator was in a grocery store and used the sixth sense to check on the best buy for toilet paper. There is no keyboard and all he needs is a surface for the projector to display on for him access the data, anywhere at anytime. Also mention in the presentation was that the parts for this device cost about $350.00, pricing for almost anyone.

At the beginning of the PC age, we were tethered to our desks. Then the laptop, PDA, and smart phone entered the picture. We could move away from the desk and wander about. With sixth sense and other UbC devices we will be able to have our technology interact with our environment. I like the comic at this site http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/VRvsUbi.gif because it shows what UbC can bring into society.

With all of this wonderful technology being used and integrated into society. What will happen if it breaks down? Will there be catastrophic panics throughout the populous? Will we be able to function without the aid of UbC devices? I am really excited to incorporate UbC devices, but I wonder if we become so dependent on it. Will our very identity as a people will become so integrated with technology that we cannot function as a society when it is taken away?

Pirvacy a Lost Art

On Monday, we discussed privacy and how the technology affects our Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A big conflict in society a few years ago was the Patriot Act I and II. The Patriot Act gave the government the privilege to tap phone conversations, search emails, and place any person in the US under surveillance without a warrant. In the early 2000’s it was a huge deal and was debated heavily. However, now it isn’t brought up in news or political press. The Patriot Act is still in effect, but the greater majority of the US has just accepted the fact that they are being listened in on.

We read a paper by Gary Marx called “Privacy and technology”. It was very interesting to read about what Marx said about the importance of privacy. He listed ten reasons; the one that caught my eye was number 9 “Privacy can help provide the solitude and peace necessary to mental health and creativity in a dynamic society. Here, it is a question of control over what is taken in, rather than what is given out”. I found the statement to be true in my own life. I have felt anxiety when I find out that a large majority of information is online. I Googled my full name and luckily there was no results found. But it worried me that this technology is being used by employers to gather information about employee candidates.

We also discussed how the expectation for privacy has declined from generation to generation. What level of privacy does the current college student expect? I believe that society as a whole has given up privacy for convenience and security. But in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “When you give up liberty for security, you lose both” (paraphrased). I translate that, when you give up something like privacy or liberty for security or convenience you end up losing both. How far will society give up privacy and liberty, before they give up too much? Will society divide even more by the level of privacy expected in our daily lives?

Internet The World Wide Community

Also this week we read about politics on the web. How new ideas are being distributed electronically throughout the world. The internet has penetrated every continent, and hundreds of countries are using its resources. Here is a map of the internet generated by the Opte Project (www.opte.org).



















Map Key
Asia Pacific - Red
Europe/Middle East/Central Asia/Africa - Green
North America - Blue
Latin American and Caribbean - Yellow
RFC1918 IP Addresses - Cyan
Unknown - White

In the United States access to the Internet is provided by private companies. In other countries, like China and Cuba, government provides and regulates Internet access. There has been talk by the FCC to provide free national wireless internet. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809560499668087.html) If that does come into reality, how much control would the government have on regulating where we can go on the Internet?

Cuba is a great example of government controlling the Internet. According to the New York Times, Cuba has only one Internet café, in the capitol building, and it removes any unauthorized access to the Internet through satellite. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/world/americas/06cuba.html) It amazes me at how much people put up with outside of the United States.

Usually when we talk about our community before the Internet, it was extremely localized. At the largest it may cover an entire city geographically. But now thanks to the Internet it has become a world wide community. Just recently I had an encounter with a person living in Taiwan, through the Internet. We have never talked before and we have very little in common, but we both were trying to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world through the Internet.

I relish in being apart of a growing community. It makes me sad that some people throughout the world are being denied this privilege by their own government. But these people have found a way to share what they have learned with their fellow citizens. In Cuba they have an underground information exchange via memory sticks. That amazes me how much the people of the United States take for granted.

Facebook my own experience +

This week we discussed about Facebook and its many implications. It is a social networking site that was created for college students. In recent years it opened up to everyone with Internet access. It is the largest social networking site in the world.

At first I agreed with Michael Bugeja, in that it Facebook destroyed interpersonal skills and didn’t supply any benefits other than staying in contact with other people. Then I started using Facebook. I began to treat it with skepticism, and with an open mind started an evaluation trial. At first I tried to keep my usage down to a minimum, because I know of many people who are Facebook addicts. As I started to use it I found that it became very useful.

I don’t have a cell phone so many texts regarding events and other bits of news hardly ever came to me. I began to get that info that was generally set out by text. I became more up-to-date about what was going on with my friends. I DJ and a lot of the dances I DJ are free and we try to get as many people as we possibly can. It is interesting that I have been able to gauge how many people are coming by Facebook response to the event invites. Our largest event had about 4,000 people and with in the first day of it being posted, we had thousands of invites spread across Facebook.

I read two interesting articles on line. This article http://www.newfangled.com/a_professional_opinion_of_social_networks made me think about the growth rate of Facebook. Two years ago it was growing at 260%. That is explosive. It is now larger than MySpace. That means Facebook could be in the top ten largest countries (if it was a country). It also gave reference to how much people feel connected to their friends even when they don’t see them very often.

Another article is http://vwgli.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/are-social-networking-websites-such-as-facebook-beneficial-for-society/. This article made me think about my own experience with Facebook. I got on Facebook to keep in touch with friends who are attending different colleges and universities. Now I have met more people I wouldn’t have met otherwise. I am becoming friends with my friend’s friends. My own personal social capital is growing to be very beneficial. I see society becoming closer due to social networking sites, because they are making distances a small factor in who we meet and interact with.

Online Enforcement

This week in class we read “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell. It discussed the reaction of a chat room community to the offensive scenes keyed by the user “Mr. Bungle”. The victims of Mr. Bungle’s assault called for his total removal from the chat room. Which grew into a large almost entirely community wide debate on whether “capital punishment” was fitting for this crime, or whether Mr. Bungle’s right of free speech and expression should be honored. It was determined by one of the “Wizards” (admin) of the site to execute his character and delete his account. To no ones great surprise, Mr. Bungle was back in three days as Dr. Jest.

The deletion of Mr. Bungle’s account was in no way a hindrance to the live person behind the account. He spent a little time to create his new profile but soon enough he had entered that chat room again as a new person, who resembled in text the old character. In this world of many online communities, do we live in anarchy where anyone is free to as they see fit without fear of punishment or reprisal? The chat room’s community responded to the pleas of the victims and made it clear to the administrators that this was, in fact, a cyber crime and should be dealt with. However, simply deleting an account does not permanently hinder the perpetrator.

In earlier societies, when everyone had to have a static IP address it made it possible to limit access for a time by blocking that IP address. Due to the shortage of IP addresses, however, dynamic IP addresses and public IP addresses make blocking nearly impossible. The attempt to black list certain names and other identifying information is not logical or reasonable. For security purposes I input bogus information into unimportant and unreliable sites. For what little it does deleting accounts seems to be the only acceptable answer to social cyber crimes.

The article also brought up that control of the community would shift from the admins to the users. They weren’t giving control of the database and other executive commands but the governing of the community to the users. It turned into a huge democracy where the majority ruled. Yet, there were only a minority of users who actively appeared to participate in deciding how the community would be run. In a community that could hold thousands if not hundreds of thousands, and only a few hundred respond to a call to govern. How does a democracy thrive in that environment? Granted everyone has a voice but only a few are making theirs heard, the minority is making decisions for a majority turning it into an authoritarian government where the Few rule the Many.

People have used online communities to escape reality, and the pressures brought on by their current status. I feel that to escape is to leave everything behind, but to some I guess it is to only change shoes from the oppressed to the oppressor.

I wonder what laws are being used to regulate Internet use? I found a website The Best and Worst Internet Laws . In it it lists 6 laws, the two best, the two that accomplish their goals but aren't necessarily good, and the top ten worst Internet laws, Utah made number 5, 4, and 2. Reading about these laws only four were posted that were considered good by this author, however the author, Eric Goldman, is biased towards the free flow of information, and only regulation to make things easier, and cheaper for consumers. He does a good job on the bad laws by pointing out how hard they are to enforce, or how little good they actually could do.

Digital Education

This week in class we discussed different ways communities have tried to close the digital divide. In “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide” by Mark Warschauer, he gives three examples of towns and countries trying to upgrade their societies. The examples he gives are India Kiosks, Ennis in Ireland spending $22 million on computers and internet, and the college of education at a major Egyptian university. All three of these attempts failed to close the “Digital Divide”.
In class we discussed why these projects failed. There were many factors brought up in class: socio-economic status, socialization, general view of technology. In each of the three cases, however education came up in the list. Why is education so important in the continued use of technology? I don’t just mean knowing how to use it, but using it inside classrooms and on school projects.

Microsoft gets a bad rep for being used by over 90% of the computer populous. However, we fail to realize that most people learned to use Microsoft products in High School. Microsoft sells, at extremely reduced prices, or just gives its software away to places of education. I have received a copy of $3,000 software and am taking a training course that costs $10,000 on average for free from Microsoft, because I am a student. Why is Microsoft giving away $13,000? In general, once a person has learned how to use the software and sees its potential, that person is a loyal customer for life.

I feel that businesses are keeping on top of the “Digital Divide” in regards to education, but the schools themselves are the ones falling far behind. The Jordan School District released a slide show on YouTube about this lack of technology in the classroom.



I wonder what would happen if teachers did incorporate podcasts and cell phones in class. Granted they would have to deal with students who didn’t have cell phones, but a phone company could get loyal customers if they gave, away service and phones to students for educational purposes.