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/
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
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
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
Friday, September 12, 2008
Article Relations: How the Job market has changed.
The main thing these three articles, "The Social Network as a Career Safety Net," "A Company Computer and Questions about E-mail Privacy," and "An Introduction to the Information Age," have in common is an explanation of how the job market all over the world has been rapidly changing. All three articles bring up very different points that all prove how diffucult the world of employment has become.
In Wednesday's class we discussed the decline of unions and labour organizations that protect workers in the information age due to the social polarization and exclusion that comes with globalization, business networking, and the individualization of the worker. This causes problems because the worker is left to their own devices in relation to the job market and their own relationship to their company. In "A Company Computer and Questions about E-mail Privacy," a man named Scott Sidell is fired from his job and accusses his company of reading his personal emails. Apparently, companies are allowed to monitor their emplyee's email communication when they are using a company computer, but they are not supposed to be able to access their emplyee's personal email accounts. The laws for these issues are still evolving, but in the past where a labour union could protect a worker and demand certain rights, the present day situation has a more gray area. Mr. Sidell was in the process of suing his old company, and his case was raising new issues concerning the relationships between companies and their employees. Another comment in class made was statistic of the number of jobs people will now have in their lifetime, between seven and fourteen. It's going to be harder for a worker to gain any sort of power or rights when they are only working at a company for a limited amount of time.
Which leads us to the discussion of flexi-workers. Flexi-workers represent the individualizaton of work, because they will not stay at the same company for long, which is a good tactic in today's world with statistics like seven to fourteen jobs per career. And a useful tool for these flexi-workers, and workers of the information age, is their social network. Social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are becoming very popular for workers because of the instability of our economy and the individualization of work as we discussed before. These sites allow workers to connect with people who can help them get a job or find a new one, and stay in touch with people around the world. But as Castell mentioned in "An Introduction to the Information Age," this networking stabilizes the global economy, but only for those who can afford it, and ignores the common unskilled laborer.
These three articles are extremely informative and illustrate a decent picture of what the global job market is currently like and what it will probably look like for the next few decades, however frightening that may be to college undergraduates who will be looking for jobs in a few years to come.
In Wednesday's class we discussed the decline of unions and labour organizations that protect workers in the information age due to the social polarization and exclusion that comes with globalization, business networking, and the individualization of the worker. This causes problems because the worker is left to their own devices in relation to the job market and their own relationship to their company. In "A Company Computer and Questions about E-mail Privacy," a man named Scott Sidell is fired from his job and accusses his company of reading his personal emails. Apparently, companies are allowed to monitor their emplyee's email communication when they are using a company computer, but they are not supposed to be able to access their emplyee's personal email accounts. The laws for these issues are still evolving, but in the past where a labour union could protect a worker and demand certain rights, the present day situation has a more gray area. Mr. Sidell was in the process of suing his old company, and his case was raising new issues concerning the relationships between companies and their employees. Another comment in class made was statistic of the number of jobs people will now have in their lifetime, between seven and fourteen. It's going to be harder for a worker to gain any sort of power or rights when they are only working at a company for a limited amount of time.
Which leads us to the discussion of flexi-workers. Flexi-workers represent the individualizaton of work, because they will not stay at the same company for long, which is a good tactic in today's world with statistics like seven to fourteen jobs per career. And a useful tool for these flexi-workers, and workers of the information age, is their social network. Social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are becoming very popular for workers because of the instability of our economy and the individualization of work as we discussed before. These sites allow workers to connect with people who can help them get a job or find a new one, and stay in touch with people around the world. But as Castell mentioned in "An Introduction to the Information Age," this networking stabilizes the global economy, but only for those who can afford it, and ignores the common unskilled laborer.
These three articles are extremely informative and illustrate a decent picture of what the global job market is currently like and what it will probably look like for the next few decades, however frightening that may be to college undergraduates who will be looking for jobs in a few years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)