The Perspective of a Digital Native

While reading “Not Your Father’s Internet,” and “Digital Natives,” I began to realize just how large the generation gap between my parents and me really is. So many technological advances have occurred in the past fifty years, and the internet is by far one of the most important advances. Everything between us and our parents ways of life growing up has been different, they way we communicate, find information, and socially interact with one another has been affected by the internet. The use of the internet has also affected politics, and the way politicians are attracting voters. As a digital native, I am aware that I have advantages in my knowledge of the internet and technology over digital residents and digital immigrants. So, for something like the Media and Communications department website, how can my knowledge and expectations of the internet help to improve the website?
In the recent presidential election, it was pretty obvious that Barack Obama had made a clear and better connection to young voters than John McCain had, and it helped him win the election. Looking at their ages, John McCain is much older and considered a digital immigrant, while Barack Obama is not even fifty, and considered a digital resident. A comparison of their websites also shows the differences in appearance and sophistication, with Barack Obama’s website having a very formal appearance, and John McCain’s website resembling a News Channel website. Young people get most of their information from the internet, so when we go to a website, we expect the information to be laid out for us in a clear, organized matter. We also like being involved in a website, in the article “Not Your Father’s internet,” the authors refer to research in that “young people turn to the Internet not to join a passive audience for politics, but rather to seek their own audiences and engage in active processes of creation and interaction.” The terms “interactivity” and “coproduction” are two terms used frequently in this article that describe what people are looking for out of their internet experience and why. Coproduction is essentially what we are doing in class right now for a better Communications department website; bringing the user into the process of producing and manipulating the content of the website. And interactivity is what we are striving towards for this website because it is about getting the user fully immersed in the website by viewing the material and possibly contributing to it. So with this in mind, I think a blog would be a great attribute to the website because students would be able to ask questions, get involved, and communicate with one another. Students like to get feedback and see what other people are talking about, and a blog could be a place for students, professors, and alumni to communicate. Obviously, a blog like this would have to monitored and updated, but that could possibly be given as a class assignment in one of the media and communication courses. The communications website should be a place where students can access information and also get feedback from their peers and advisors, and in this day and age where much of what young people do is through the internet, a blog would be a great tool of communication and interaction.

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality seems to be a stickier issue than it should be. Net Neutrality, as defined by Lawrence Lessig and Robert McChesney in their article, “No Tolls on the Internet,” means, “all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate.” In my opinion, net neutrality seems to be a good thing. As we discussed in class, the internet is a little different from the things that we pay more money for in return for better quality, like insurance policies or even something like a new flat screen HD television. We are a capitalistic nation, so why should the internet be any different? Well, what separates the internet from other things is the necessity and frequency that we use the internet, plus that the internet was founded on the principles that it is equal-access. I’m sure all of us are on the internet at least five times a day or more, doing research, chatting with friends. The internet opens many doors for people who may not have access to those doors without the internet, like education, news, and so much more, and I think everyone deserves quality, high speed internet at a decent price.
The United States is ranked sixteenth in the world for internet capacity, and for a country as powerful and progressive as we are, we should be doing a lot better. Big Corporations control enough in the United States, the internet should be an equal playing ground.

p.s. I found this article in the news that I found rather interesting as it relates to crimes committed in the virtual world affecting your life in the real world.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081023/AS.Japan.Avatar.Murder/

OpenNet Initiative Response

Searching through the OpenNet Initiative website was very informative, and it was interesting to see the different countries rules and regulations pertaining to censoring the internet. What I found the pattern to be for most countries was whatever the biggest issue that country was dealing with at the time, be it religion, politics, social standards, seemed to be the most censored for that country's internet access.
For example, one country I looked up was Venezuela, for the main reason being their current president, Hugo Chavez, has had a controversial reign in Venezuela and it is well known the U.S. government does not approve of him. Venezuela is not subject to extensive content restrictions, but they are to a few. Hugo Chavez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism and Latin American Integration, and he famously is a critic of U.S. foreign policy, which of course makes him an unpopular figure in the eyes of the U.S government. So the main internet filtering the Chavez administration wants to do is political, to limit freedom of the press and expression, in order to maintain his own control, and not give Venezuelan citizens any other political idea's other than the ones that already exist.
Another country I looked at was Vietnam, whose internet is regulated extensively. Ironically, the citizens are allowed to question corruption, economic policy, and government deficiencies, but the line is drawn at political criticism, involving political leaders, political parties, and sensitive social and diplomatic issues. Looking at Vietnam's history, they are a country that have constantly fought for their independence, and a country that had to make a lot of changes after the Vietnam war. I think this extends to censoring their internet, they want to keep control, because they have had so much trouble in the past, and are finally having good economic development.
Once again, I have to end my blog with being thankful that I live in a country whose internet is not highly censored, where I can look up any information I want, whether or not it makes the country look bad, and not be persecuted for my actions. Not that internet in the United States is unregulable, because it is, but we still have great amounts of freedom using it.

Google and China

Google is one of the most popular and widely used internet search engines in the world. So it would be no surprise that such a big company would want to exist in the biggest and most populated country in the world. However, Google in China is not the same Google we know in the United States.
It is pretty well known throughout the world that China is a communist country that has strict laws on censorship and media, and frequently turns their heads on issues such as human rights and the environment. Just look at the 2008 summer olympics that took place in Beijing. Hardly any news programs were allowed to broad cast any sort of protests or backlash, and could never talk about issues of Tibet, which caused a lot of controversy. As did Google's decision to succumb to China's rules.
Because of China's strict censorship laws, Google made the choice to censor it's own search engine, so if you try to go to certain sites in China they cannot be accessed. These sites are typically sites that would not put China in a good light, the Tiananmen Square massacre will certaintly not come up in a search, but pictures of modern Tiananmen Square and information on tourism surely would. However, if Google had just pulled out and never moved it's servers to Chinese territoy, Chinese citizens would be at a loss by not being able to access information, even if some of it is censored. As Sergey Brin described, going into China, "wasn't as much a business decision as a decision about getting people information. And we decided in the end that we should make this compromise."
As people have pointed out, Google's decision is hypocritical in that their slogan is "Don't be Evil," but they are conspiring with China's censors. Google was working with the situation they had, and since China's policies are not changing anytime soon, they gave Chinese citizens something to work with.
With all the fear and anxiety that exists for the C.E.O's, bloggers, and journalists should they "cross the line" and not comply to "self discipline," it is hard to imagine a future of free speech and democracy for the Country of China. But one hopeful note that I found in the article was that it is actually slowly happening, the young generation of China is blogging and chatting online, public speech is a norm for them. And the Chinese people have taking a liking to democracy as evident in the "Super Girl" competition televised throughtout China, where people could vote and promote their favorite candidates, the article even compared it to a presidential election campaign.
Growing up and living in the United States, it is hard to imagine what it is like not being able to speak one's mind, or protest an issue that was important to me. It's very hopeful that the internet can go beyond it's technological capabilities, and not just socially connect people, but allow people to speak their minds where in a situation without the internet, they could not.

Second Life class room experience

The Second Life class room experience was very intersting, and it's pretty cool that in today's society, a class can be held in cyber space. I liked the Second Life Class because it allowed for good discussion and everyone to participate, I think people were probably less hesitant to speak out in Second Life than they would be in class. It had a small "class room" feel to it, but for the most part, it felt like everyone in class had got together to talk about cyber space and it's regulability. I still don't understand Second Life completely, how to do certain things and I was having trouble teleporting so that put a damper on my experience. I have to say I would prefer a real class room setting to the one in cyber space because it is a little more controlled, and I'm not as easily distracted as I am in cyberspace. The discussion in Second Life was good, but there were so many things going on at once it got a little confusing at times. I think Second Life class room would be fun to do a few more times, and it was definitly an experience!

Second Life Name

My second life's name is Tonya Renfold.

interesting examples

This is an article that I seen in another class, but I think it can relate to what we talked about in class today with carrying over a virtual life into reality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml

The quote that most stands out to me is: "Life is a life a video game. Everybody's got to die sometime."

And Just for fun, when we were talking about napster, it reminded me of an episode from South Park that made fun of the musicians who complained about downloading music online and the punishment for doing so. Keep in mind, South Park can be pretty offensive sometimes.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/709/Christian-Rock-Hard.html