Reading:
Interesting responses:
Again, this is an article from the US. It is quite revealing that Australian Universities do not find enough local material to fill their studies. And as if there is only one country in existence outside Australia, we refer to the US. Are we really that similar to the Americans that we can accept their material 1:1? It is interesting to find out that a university in a multicultural country mostly inhabited by Australians of English heritage followed closely by those from other European countries and also increasingly Asian background prefers to refer to specific US material.
Lessig, L. (2006). Four puzzles from cyber space. In L. Lessig Code version 2.0 (pp 9-30). New York: Basic Books. (available online through the code 2.0 wiki - you can also download the entire book))
Comment (also posted on Blackboard):
Comment (also posted on Blackboard):
For me, the protagonists from the first two stories from cyberspace are clearly experimenting with the opportunities the cyber world provides. It seems as if there is some sort of escape from the real world. However, I can comprehend how tempting it is, when you have the opportunity to change basically everything to your own demands. A godlike scenario is described on "Borders: "He [Dank] also had a choice about whether a copy of the dog could be made, so that if it died it could be 'revived'. In MMOG space these possibilities are not given by God. Or rather, if they are defined by God, then the players share the power of God."
The danger I see is that people with a less stable psychic constitution could have trouble finding their way around in the real world after spending excessive time in cyberspace: "What does it mean to live in a world where problems can be coded away?"
Also, in cyber world, real world ethics have no meaning. I think that people or organisations with low ethical standards find a perfect playground online. In the case of the article 'Jake's Communities' this might actually be a good thing. Although I personally regard his stories as plain sick, I think it is a good thing to transfer these phantasies from the real world into the Web. I think that the morally deranged are those who make an effort to condemn people like Jake. In my own opinion we are all guilty of having double standards - while we expect high standards from members of our social environment, we put the lesser ones upon ourselves. Interestingly it doesn't even occur to most of us that we have these low standards until somebody points them out to us. Jake has these double standards too, with the exception of living out his dark side disguised as an online-ID, rather than trying to hide it away from his real-world social environment, without any valve to take off the pressure of not being able to express himself. In Jake's case real-world peers had no idea about his strange phantasies until his ID was revealed. At the same time it must have been a revelation to Jake to find out that he was not alone with his deranged phantasies. The question that still lingers in the air is: Would it have been enough to express the wish to rape and torture women to a slow death in the long run? And would he and his online community have been intelligent enough to realise that they need professional help?
When I first read Tim Berners-Lee's book 'Weaving the Web' I was absolutely stunned that a man would give away the opportunity for World Domination by making the Web absolutely free to it's users. The biggest legacy that we will struggle with is certainly the aspect of total freedom. With it comes total responsibility and total tolerance for everything that is put on the Web. Cases like Jake's make it hard for many people not to cry out for regulation. But regulation would tell us again what we are supposed to process and what not to process. But we are all capable of making decisions without a Fuehrer, who tells us what to think.
Pornography, excessive violence, racism, terrorism etc. are not problems of the Web. They are problems of society. Hiding their online expressions away would not achieve anything, except for making them profitable for those who use illegality to sell forbidden stuff at excessive prices. The problems are not on the Web.
As the story about Jake concludes, "when Jake was prosecuted, many First Amendment defenders argued his words, however vivid, never crossed into reality. And no doubt there is a difference between writing about rape and raping. Just as there is a difference between an actor enacting rape and actually raping someone."
The danger I see is that people with a less stable psychic constitution could have trouble finding their way around in the real world after spending excessive time in cyberspace: "What does it mean to live in a world where problems can be coded away?"
Also, in cyber world, real world ethics have no meaning. I think that people or organisations with low ethical standards find a perfect playground online. In the case of the article 'Jake's Communities' this might actually be a good thing. Although I personally regard his stories as plain sick, I think it is a good thing to transfer these phantasies from the real world into the Web. I think that the morally deranged are those who make an effort to condemn people like Jake. In my own opinion we are all guilty of having double standards - while we expect high standards from members of our social environment, we put the lesser ones upon ourselves. Interestingly it doesn't even occur to most of us that we have these low standards until somebody points them out to us. Jake has these double standards too, with the exception of living out his dark side disguised as an online-ID, rather than trying to hide it away from his real-world social environment, without any valve to take off the pressure of not being able to express himself. In Jake's case real-world peers had no idea about his strange phantasies until his ID was revealed. At the same time it must have been a revelation to Jake to find out that he was not alone with his deranged phantasies. The question that still lingers in the air is: Would it have been enough to express the wish to rape and torture women to a slow death in the long run? And would he and his online community have been intelligent enough to realise that they need professional help?
When I first read Tim Berners-Lee's book 'Weaving the Web' I was absolutely stunned that a man would give away the opportunity for World Domination by making the Web absolutely free to it's users. The biggest legacy that we will struggle with is certainly the aspect of total freedom. With it comes total responsibility and total tolerance for everything that is put on the Web. Cases like Jake's make it hard for many people not to cry out for regulation. But regulation would tell us again what we are supposed to process and what not to process. But we are all capable of making decisions without a Fuehrer, who tells us what to think.
Pornography, excessive violence, racism, terrorism etc. are not problems of the Web. They are problems of society. Hiding their online expressions away would not achieve anything, except for making them profitable for those who use illegality to sell forbidden stuff at excessive prices. The problems are not on the Web.
As the story about Jake concludes, "when Jake was prosecuted, many First Amendment defenders argued his words, however vivid, never crossed into reality. And no doubt there is a difference between writing about rape and raping. Just as there is a difference between an actor enacting rape and actually raping someone."
Interesting responses:
Yes Volker, this reading confronts us with many challenges...and my mind is want to drift sideways into real life with the present ongoing problems which police and lawyers face in a cyber world which has outpaced our laws of the land. We need our laws in cyberspace. Where are the borders? Who defines the borders? I am wondering who is beavering away trying to work all this all out for us? It is a fine line between a good law and an oppressive law. And how is it to be enforced in order to be effective? Eliza
My re-response:
My re-response:
Hi Elizabeth - that's just what I'm thinking. But what I also wanted to point out is that the Web is something that has been put into our hands. I don't think that we should let anybody work it out for us in terms of any laws or regulations. We are free to use it and to make it work which ever way we want.
Also, in the reading about Jake it seems that US American citizens don't understand that the Web doesn't end at the borders of the US. So, how can US American law apply to things that happen online? It's also funny when you look into social networks like LinkedIn and discuss professional issues. Americans always take it for granted that everyone they discuss something with has to take an US American view on the issue.
But if you take into account that the Web exists as one large society of a broad mix of cultures, languages, religious and political views, who shall decide about regulations? Here nobody tells us what to think. We can get into contact directly with people from Yemen, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Uganda, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, just like I am writing to you. If political upheaval appears somewhere, we don't have to rely on what we're told and we don't have to trust news outlets because of the lack of alternatives. Instead we are free to conduct our own investigations.
I think that it will take a while until people realise how much power they have, if they join forces online. To me it sometimes occurs to be an anarchistic experiment.
Also, in the reading about Jake it seems that US American citizens don't understand that the Web doesn't end at the borders of the US. So, how can US American law apply to things that happen online? It's also funny when you look into social networks like LinkedIn and discuss professional issues. Americans always take it for granted that everyone they discuss something with has to take an US American view on the issue.
But if you take into account that the Web exists as one large society of a broad mix of cultures, languages, religious and political views, who shall decide about regulations? Here nobody tells us what to think. We can get into contact directly with people from Yemen, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Uganda, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, just like I am writing to you. If political upheaval appears somewhere, we don't have to rely on what we're told and we don't have to trust news outlets because of the lack of alternatives. Instead we are free to conduct our own investigations.
I think that it will take a while until people realise how much power they have, if they join forces online. To me it sometimes occurs to be an anarchistic experiment.
Watch:
Comment:
Comments on the Jenkins video: http://vimeo.com/4672634
This video really grabbed me by the throat. Most of it I can absolutely relate to:
Indeed, old media is dying. Instead of having others decide what we are supposed to know and filtering down to what is alleged customer expectation, now the average consumer is in control. As long as any people have access to the Web they will have the opportunity, not only to decide what to know more about, but also what to make of it, analyse it and even discuss it with total strangers on the other side of the world.
I also like the definition of convergence culture: "Every story, sound, image, relation plays itself out over a maximum of media channels." Media today functions as collective intelligence. We are a trinity of journalist, editor and reader - all one and the same person.
I still remember first reading 1984 by George Orwell - a gloomy painting of the future in the 1970s. Now it seems like we are watching and analysing every move of Big Brother, actually tearing down the walls that protect Big Brothers exclusive knowledge and source of manipulative power. Wikileaks, blogs, forums and newsgroups all contribute to a 360 degree look at every single news feature. Not only are we able to verify a story, we can all actively contribute to it. Online society has the capacity to collectively assess information upon its accuracy and application.
In his last election Barack Obama used the power of the masses rather than corrupting himself with the power of the rich, being voted president of the USA. I wonder if it would be thinkable to have Barack Obama be the real world representative for the online society. He has followers who actually understand how to use the power of the Web. The vast majority of the earth's population still doesn't understand the Web. They fear it and therefore want to regulate it. If a leader can use the power of online society to win a real world election, maybe he can use the same power to make real world people understand and join the online society.
This video really grabbed me by the throat. Most of it I can absolutely relate to:
Indeed, old media is dying. Instead of having others decide what we are supposed to know and filtering down to what is alleged customer expectation, now the average consumer is in control. As long as any people have access to the Web they will have the opportunity, not only to decide what to know more about, but also what to make of it, analyse it and even discuss it with total strangers on the other side of the world.
I also like the definition of convergence culture: "Every story, sound, image, relation plays itself out over a maximum of media channels." Media today functions as collective intelligence. We are a trinity of journalist, editor and reader - all one and the same person.
I still remember first reading 1984 by George Orwell - a gloomy painting of the future in the 1970s. Now it seems like we are watching and analysing every move of Big Brother, actually tearing down the walls that protect Big Brothers exclusive knowledge and source of manipulative power. Wikileaks, blogs, forums and newsgroups all contribute to a 360 degree look at every single news feature. Not only are we able to verify a story, we can all actively contribute to it. Online society has the capacity to collectively assess information upon its accuracy and application.
In his last election Barack Obama used the power of the masses rather than corrupting himself with the power of the rich, being voted president of the USA. I wonder if it would be thinkable to have Barack Obama be the real world representative for the online society. He has followers who actually understand how to use the power of the Web. The vast majority of the earth's population still doesn't understand the Web. They fear it and therefore want to regulate it. If a leader can use the power of online society to win a real world election, maybe he can use the same power to make real world people understand and join the online society.
Response from Stephen Oakes:
Hi Volker -
It is great you have put into perspective that most people on Earth don't understand the web.
I found an interesting statistical web link on Internet Usage and Penetration:
http://blog.ausweb.com.au/internet-usage-statistics/
No surprise that the United States has the most amount of penetration, with Oceania/Australia coming in second.
Overall the world average is 28%.
I wonder what internet usage will be in 5 years ?
Stephen :)
My response to Stephen Oakes:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for posting this link. Indeed, the stats are quite revealing.
I have no doubt that Web use will increase massively over the next years. First of all the older non-IT generations will die away and then 4G technology will heavily extend possibilities of transferring massive data amounts by mobile device, making it even more convenient to communicate with the world from your palm.
Only recently I've been to a Cisco Business Insight program with a couple of students from my university. The presenter was one of the top developers in Melbourne. Being asked what he thinks about the future development in IT he was convinced that in 5-10 years time everything Web will happen from a hand held. Let's wait and see...
Volker
Hi Volker -
It is great you have put into perspective that most people on Earth don't understand the web.
I found an interesting statistical web link on Internet Usage and Penetration:
http://blog.ausweb.com.au/internet-usage-statistics/
No surprise that the United States has the most amount of penetration, with Oceania/Australia coming in second.
Overall the world average is 28%.
I wonder what internet usage will be in 5 years ?
Stephen :)
My response to Stephen Oakes:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for posting this link. Indeed, the stats are quite revealing.
I have no doubt that Web use will increase massively over the next years. First of all the older non-IT generations will die away and then 4G technology will heavily extend possibilities of transferring massive data amounts by mobile device, making it even more convenient to communicate with the world from your palm.
Only recently I've been to a Cisco Business Insight program with a couple of students from my university. The presenter was one of the top developers in Melbourne. Being asked what he thinks about the future development in IT he was convinced that in 5-10 years time everything Web will happen from a hand held. Let's wait and see...
Volker
Elizabeth Cowan's TED video contribution: http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html
Hadiyah Stephens:
Hadiyah Stephens:
I find it fascinating that the Egyptian government kept transcripts of it's people's online conservations, and even their face-to-face ones! I wonder if we have anything like that here in Australia; it's rather worrisome.
My response:
My response:
Hi Hadiyah. There are many more examples of totalitarian Governments (some of them posing as democracies) like this around the world. Before the fall of Eastern Germany in 1990 the so called Stasi (STAtatsSIcherheitsdienst) -a secret police created to control basically any move of any East German- encouraged citizens to spy their own neighbours, friends and even relatives. This went on for 40 years. The Gauck office named after Joachim Gauck (currently Federal President of Germany) was founded after East Germany and West Germany we rejoined in 1990.The Department was formed to make sure that the Stasi Archives would not be destroyed and to help former citizens of East Germany to find out if and by whom they were denounced.
Some of the revelations from the Stasi Archives had severe impact on friendships and family relations. But overall it definitely helped to clean the air - especially for those who were held as political prisoners or received other kinds of punishment due to their deviation from the enacted political view.
Some of the revelations from the Stasi Archives had severe impact on friendships and family relations. But overall it definitely helped to clean the air - especially for those who were held as political prisoners or received other kinds of punishment due to their deviation from the enacted political view.
Personal comment on Australian Universities using US resources:
Again, this is an article from the US. It is quite revealing that Australian Universities do not find enough local material to fill their studies. And as if there is only one country in existence outside Australia, we refer to the US. Are we really that similar to the Americans that we can accept their material 1:1? It is interesting to find out that a university in a multicultural country mostly inhabited by Australians of English heritage followed closely by those from other European countries and also increasingly Asian background prefers to refer to specific US material.
No comments:
Post a Comment