This Class

This class was structured unlike any other class I've ever taken. I have had three other classes, now four, with Jodi Dean and enjoyed her other class structures much better. However, the content and discussions in this class fostered much intellectual curiosity in my brain. I remember continually leaving her other classes with a firm grasp on Rousseau's paradox of founding or Locke's notions of property because there were firm concepts. I always left this class with more questions than answers, (which I think may have been the point in a lot of cases). There was a very serious and scholarly atmosphere in modern political philosophy in which all students were expected to come prepared and participate, this class was more laid back and easy-going. Of course she expected us to be prepared and participate, but it was easier in this course. First, she was generally a more understanding and open teacher throughout this experience which, I hope, will continue on to her understanding of my final project. I find it funny that I just labeled this course as an experience, rather than a class, which I think says something. This class didn't really have to be as prepared because most of the subjects we were discussing were well known to everyone already. You couldn't really ‘jump’ into a discussion of Kant or Nietzsche without reading the previous night because it would be obvious to everyone (especially professor Dean) that you were just making statements without regard to the text. In Internet & Politics it was easy for any student to jump into a discussion of internet privacy, ethics, media technology in the presidential campaign and everything else because we are inclined to have some knowledge of it already as we are all avid internet users. I think that really added a lot to the class because people were interested in most of the topics. I also think it took away from the class because students didn’t feel compelled to read because they knew they wouldn’t ‘get caught’ if they didn’t. Most students don't read if they don't have any immediate consequences. I felt that there was a real lack of reading and utilizing the sources she provided, which she ended up catching on to (see the poll “how many sources have you used?” for evidence of this). The tone of the class was set the first day when she wasn’t there and guided it through the blog. I enjoyed this class a lot, and would take it again if I had to do this semester over, but think a little bit more structure would have been helpful.
Matt

Man's reach exceeds his grasp

The internet, in theory, is without functional limits. It provides some sort of benefit for literally everything that we do. There are few things, if any, which cannot derive even a menial benefit from the internet. One may find love, receive an education, reconnect with lost friends, get the daily news, voice an opinion and learn how to do just about anything that is capable of being learned by using the internet. Many perceive the advancement of the internet in the last decade and get a sort of ‘anything is possible’ outlook on the future of the internet. This sense of ‘limitlessness' spawns truly grand and noble ambitions for the future role of the internet in our society. Innovative ideas coupled with a sense of limitlessness, in theory, comes beyond belief yet feasible possibilities. I believe the most widespread of these feasible possibilities is the manifestation of the true will of the American people through the internet. Granted, this is a sort of utopian aspiration, but it is none the less a feasible one. Obviously, the main barrier to the emergence of this forum is a logistical one, yet I ask the reader to momentarily forget logistical barriers (internet prevalence, literacy), and accept the inevitability of an internet forum which provides the capability to project the true will of the people. This utopian forum will allow for a truly collective voice, comprised of all Americans, centralized in an easy to understand graph or pie chart. When it is accomplished it will have the potential to immensely influence countless decisions in a hyper-democratic way. It will allow for Congressional and Presidential decisions to be greatly persuaded by the straightforward and easy to understand projection of the people’s will. The internet then, in theory, can provide the most important tool to our elected policy makers: the voice of the people.

Unfortunately, too often an idea in theory misleads perceivers into believing that the ‘idea in theory’ will eventually become an idea manifested in reality because of the clearly logical steps laid out (the logical steps here are: the idea that we will soon have the capable technology because of exponential innovation and that a collective voice is nothing but beneficial). Moreover, it provides the expectation that not only will it become a reality, but that the change to the status quo will be equal to the change in technology. Better said, revolutionary technology should provide revolutionary change. In regards to an idea in theory, in this case, the idea is the internet and the theory is the utopian political device made possible by the internet.

It has been said that man’s grasp exceeds his reach, which is meant to illustrate man’s ability to think beyond what he is capable of actually achieving. The potential of the internet is, more and more, equated to the potential of humanity: as limitless. This likening of potentialities generates a grandiose expectation of the role of the internet in our future society. People not only understand the internet as limitless, but expect it to advance in the same way that it has over the last decade, and it will. What will lag behind is its counterpart in limitlessness: humanity. The internet is growing and adapting faster than humans are capable. The internet will eventually provide the possibility for a collective voice to be utilized by elected officials, but like the right to vote not everyone will participate. Its emergence will illustrate a society unwilling to utilize a revolutionary forum which allows the true will of the people to impose weekly influence upon elected policy makers. Proponents of the internet as a utopian political device will be dejected when it enters reality, as it will go immensely underused and thus underappreciated. The collective will of the people, enabled by the use of the internet, will fatally rely on wide-spread participation. It will require a dedication that is plainly not there. Perhaps on matters of vital national importance (which are rare) participation will be high, but the people will remain drastically underrepresented on the majority of issues at the federal level, and almost all of the issues at the state and lower levels. I don’t believe that I am being too extreme. The American people are too often an apathetic people, and I don’t see that changing. Of course it would be foolish to say that even a few million voices are better than none, but what is truly foolish is the inability to achieve widespread and consistent participation in a forum that will greatly improve democracy. I predict that the average American will not fully appreciate the revolutionary benefits that this forum will provide until long after its creation. It will be a sad day indeed when a simple lack of participation from a desktop is the difference between the manifestation of the will of the people and business as usual. Man’s reach, as far as this is concerned, exceeds his grasp.

The 4th

"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."

How can this amendment protect your internet activity?

I wrote the following in an e-mail to myself

*I did this because I have heard that HWS has software that picks out key 'danger' words. If there are enough, then it flags the e-mail and it is reviewed. So I wrote this, and sent it to myself*:

If any of the words at the bottom triggered your software to flag this email, and you are reading this then:

GO $#%& @#$%^$&*, this is none of your business




Pain, hazing, death, bombs, drugs, weed, cocaine, sell, punch, fight, hit, kick, destroy, kill, blow up, pipe bomb, AK-47, submachine gun, reloadable clips, anthrax, blood, guts, inevitable, deserve, rape, gang rape, abuse, porn ring, strippers, prostitutes, sorry, surprise attack, sniper, scope, .50 cal, vantage point, heroine, morphine, opium, pounds, smallpox, the notebook, meth, pipe, smoke, snort, inject, needle, suicide, beat up, mob, gang, hidden weapon, knife, bazooka, shotgun, 12 gauge, gun holster.


My intentions were not to upset the person (possibly) reading on a personal level, but just to get a reaction.
*think itll work?*

Sarah Palin and Dinosaurs

ANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

AT&T Censors Criticism of Bush

AT&T Censors Criticism of Bush
When Pearl Jam was performing the song "Daughter" during the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, the band broke into a version of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." Reworking the lyrics of the classic rock song, Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home."
The lyrics that criticized Bush were muted in the webcast.
Coincidence? Not at all.
AT&T admits that the censorship occurred. The company describes the muting of Vedder's references to a president who appoints Federal Communications Commissioners -- and, thus, has a major role in deciding whether AT&T gets what it wants -- as "a mistake by a webcast vendor."
Then, in a nice Orwellian twist, the company declares, "We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not censor performances."
In fact, "editing excessive profanity" is censorship.
And, of course, Vedder's lyrics about Bush, which were not profane, did in fact get censored.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/10/3097

4 chapters due thursday 10/9

Killer App
People are publicly (on the internet) expressing their opinions like never before. Public opinion polls/ blogs and emails/ eBay and Amazon feedback and rating professionals online (rate a lawyer) are all applications of public participation. The “Killer App” is a forum (not yet created) which will allow individuals to become more engaged with their government. The author claims that this application could become as widespread as Facebook or MySpace. The Killer App could arrive in many ways for a variety of different reasons. Citizens will need to trust that their opinions will be counted and reported fairly. They will need to know that their collective opinions have the possibility of being heard by the higher powers and that that will result in a direct change. Elected officials will need to know that the fee back is not only accurate, but accounts for total opinion and the opinions of those directly affected by the topic at hand. The author says that somewhere soon this Killer App will emerge, it is only a matter of time.

Citizen 2.0
Redesigning U.S. democracy for the internet age has endless possibilities. But what people mean by “democracy” varies. Some apply it simply to the election process itself. Others apply it to the way our three branches of government conduct themselves. The most significant changes will be the ones that change the way ordinary Americans perceive and interact with government officials and institutions. The internet expands the types of roles an individual can play in politics and government. Historically, citizens have been observers in the civic sphere, periodically becoming involved and letting their opinions known by voting and petitioning. Individuals have traditionally relied on government officials for a wealth of information that is now at their fingertips. A “Right To Know” thought process is taking over, and the internet is the catalyst. A fear of this is the distancing from person to person. People who once meet face to face now sit at their computers. The authors disagree. They feel this connects people even more because there are plenty of ways (going door to door for voting, town hall meetings and rallies) that people still interact.

The Last Top Down Campaign
Politics have drastically changed since 2004. Top-down big money methods or organizing and winning campaigns is now extinct. Bottom up strategies are now the way to win campaigns (as Hilary Clinton learned). Clinton should have not received money from lobbyists and special interest groups, nor should she have accepted more than $250 from each individual contribution.

Tangled Signals of Democracy
Author asks if voting helps us signal what we want from our representatives in a meaningful way. Were using a voting system developed in the 18th century.
5 Proposals for new systems:
1. Put NOTA (none of the above) on a ballot. If NOTA gets more votes then any of the candidates then a special election will be held with new candidates nominated. (In Egypt and other places, voters mark an X on their ballot as a sign that they came out to vote yet decided to mark an X as a sign of state corruption or their dissatisfaction with any of the candidates)
2. Give voters the ability to vote ‘No’ to a candidate. ( The No takes away a yes vote in the election) Let people take away a vote from someone. The person with the most net positive votes wins.
3. Release early voting results. Campaigns would put efforts in areas that haven’t voted as much which would increase turnout.
4. Embrace instant-runoff voting, or ranked balloting. Most elections have 2 clear candidates since most voters don’t want to risk ‘wasting’ their vote. This system allows you to rank your choices for candidates in order. If your candidate didn’t win a majority on the first, multi candidate ballot, your vote would be instantly transferred to your second choice etc…
5. Let voters add a comment explaining their vote. Then aggregate those comments to build a richer picture of people’s voting decisions.

Paranoia

So I think I've come to a realization about my internet paranoia. Ok here goes...With all the people on the internet (really think what that means, its a pretty ridiculous amount of people) there is no way that any company/government/system could store all of our information i.e. every website we go to/all our emails/our facebook/our comments/our posts and everything else we do. Maybe I'm wrong, but its just not possible to store all that data from everybody. So what do they do? They take snippets of our internet lives, and yes, they tell a great deal about us, but its not as invasive as I previously thought. Why have I come to this conclusion? Ask yourselves, what are they doing with this information? Well, for the unbelievably overwhelming vast majority of us it is purely for advertising purposes. Go down this blog and look at the Google disclaimer about how they store emails. All they do is pick out key words using computer software (not people reading) and use them to advertise to you. Ok, now you might be saying "Well its not Google I'm worried about, its others obtaining that information."...and this is where my personal revelation comes in. No matter how well protected, no matter how many laws we have, the government will always be able to track you, they will always know what you've been looking at. As far as the internet is concerned, the United States government is omnipotent, and they always will be. If your a little paranoid about the internet, the sooner you realize that the better. It doesn't make a difference how far we come in terms of rallying people for a privacy act, the government will still have access. Why? Because they feel that they have to much to lose to not keep up their omnipotence. Now I am about to go back on a a big thing I've said in class. If you accept that the government will always track you, and if you don't want to be tracked...don't use the internet. Also, on Google, I have really been thinking (and its been freaking me out lately because all my adds on facebook are freakishly relevant, I was showing Pat in class, every add on the side of facebook was directly responding to a word in my activities profile section.) I'm just not sure if I give a shit about that. I mean, what harm can come from that? I am a consumer and they know this. Is it really that invasive to have software track my habits and offer me something I may like? I think the analogy of having someone follow you around and track your habits in real life is irrelevant here due to me beliefs on the difference of face to face interaction as opposed to non (see down in the blog). So to sum up. The idea of paranoia about the internet to me is fading fast because 1. The government knows if they wish, and that will never change no matter WHAT (so why worry about it?) 2. Google and others have so much data to catalog that they cannot really invade you in the way most of us are thinking, they use SOFTWARE to pick out simple KEY WORDS that creates an advertising profile for you. This is where I will lose many because many believe that this is too invasive. I simply disagree from my personal standpoint. I just don't attribute a software as capable of judging me (I think thats what a lot of us are afraid of, being judged) so I don't worry about it. Ok so to really close, can anyone come up with a situation (besides facebook pictures popping up to discourage employers from hiring me) that will change my "who cares" argument? The only thing I can think of us down the line things coming up that political opponents/rival businesses would use against me. My only argument to that is that about 80% of the population probobly has the same sort of embarrassing shit so we are all sort of unified in that way? But maybe that is a bigger deal than I am anticipating.
-Mateo

blackboard scanning vs. discussions

I really didn't enjoy our last class nearly as much as the one before. I thought the long discussion really got a lot of people involved and answered a lot of our questions. This "scanning" the blackboard for ideas and interests just did not work at all for me. I thought 2 classes ago was great. We really got into some good stuff thagt people were passionate about and I was quite dissapointed that we did not do that again. I bet that if we discussed each chapter as a group everyone would have learned WAY more...but thats just me
-Matt

Delete Cyberbullying

Delete cyberbullying. It's just like regular bullying, but with more transaction fees.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831186

Class quote of the day:

If I want you to know what I'm doing in my home...I'll invite you over -James Gibney

GMail and such

So I found out (through Google) that Google does in fact read your emails on Gmail, but not the way you might think. You could imagine the logistical problem of hiring enough staff to read all those emails productively. Google uses an extremely advanced supercomputer-esq software program. It goes through all Gmails and chooses keywords that are advertising friendly. If you tell your friend your going to Vegas this weekend you'll get a how to play poker advertisement because the software program picked out the keywords "going to Vegas." For me this is not as bad as what I originally thought. It is a mindless computer picking out keywords, not Dale sitting there with a Mountain Dew and a chew going through my life story. The potential for abuse is still there, but I mean, what doesn't have the potential for abuse online anymore? If I sound apathetic to this whole situation of privacy let me assure you I am not. I am pissed that all this information is out and about.
The "What do you have to hide?---So what do you care" argument is so silly. The poeple who say it aren't silly (I tottally see where your coming from), but it's just a little ignorant. Just because you don't care doesn't mean otheres wont. Who are you to tell people how to feel about their privacy? Maybe it doesn't make a difference if they have this info, but maybe it does. Peoples privacy is a very touchy subject, and its something that America prides itself on. We have privacy, i.e. freedom in this country. You must respect a persons right to feel upset or violated, because if you get real....they are being violated in a way, we all are. It just depends on how much it offends you.

Here is Googles explanation (Type in "Does Google read your mail?" into Google)
"Privacy is an issue we take very seriously. Gmail is a technology-based program, so advertising and related information are shown using a completely automated process. Ads are selected for relevance and served by Google computers using the same contextual advertising technology that powers our AdSense program. This technology lets Google target dynamically changing content such as email or daily news stories.
Because the ads and related pages are matched to information that is already of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful.------Wow!

9/2 class notes

9/9
Politics and the Internet

-We recognize that the problems and issues we face with computers and the internet are not
new. They had to figure out how to carry a pencil and not lose it.
-Recognize the inextricability of the human and the technological.
-No separation between the human and the technological.
-Artificiality is natural to humans. Humans are not 100% determined by the environment
-No such thing as a pre human being that is later determined by technology.
-Visual organization of space is determined by culture
-Humans are inextricable from technology not simply an effect.
-What matters for analysts and critiques of digital media (our class), is not the question of is technology good or bad, right or wrong, but: how does it work, what does it do, what does it entail. What is it making how is it making, how is it making us, is it making us?

Ong
-Primary frame of reference is to distinguish between oral cultures and literate cultures
-Radically different worlds
-Secondary orality
-Oral cultures characterized by a sort of impermanence, as so as my word is said, it’s gone.
-Experience the word as an event, it stops
-Writing tends to pin things down
-Just because something is penned down doesn’t mean it’s certain or clear
-Enables abstraction,
-Oral combat


McClullan
-Acoustic mode/space (orality) established through speaking or yelling
-Radio and TV create new type of acoustic space
-You can stop reading if you close your eyes
-Acoustic space more immersive, harder to avoid even if you don’t want it there



Levinson
-Jodi Dean on acoustic space: When thinking about acoustic space think about
-amplification-
-Storage
-Transmitted
-4 Types of acoustic spaces
-Unmediated hearing (radio, TV, cyberspace)

Criticisms of Levinson
-Pg. 6 “We create and remake cyberspace by using it...Physical bodies play no role”
-In some ways that’s true (facebook) on the other hand there are aspects of the internet now that are
simply delivery systems
-Pornography means bodies play a role
-Pg. 7 “The online villager can live anywhere in the world, engage in dialogue and exchange information across the world
-False, we don’t speak/read every language
-Few of us are comfortable trying to do things in other languages
-Stay within own language groups
-Denies existence of firewalls (youTube in Turkey)
-Not every place in the world has electricity
-“Myth of accessibility”
-Less corporate gate-keeping of news
-Not true
-Anyone can be an author
-Expert knowledge is available to anyone
-How do you know?

Second Assignment

               I believe we are shaped incredibly by technology, but we still have some say. We pick and choose technologies based on our interests, how do we get those interests is hard to say, was it the chicken or the egg? This word, technology, I believe, needs some clarifying. I don't consider language or the pencil part of my meaning of "technology. I know that at some point it was, and the argument is there that it still is, but I just don't mean any of that stuff when i say technology and I believe many agree with me. 

               I like this idea of secondary orality. Stories, ideas and news are now passed face to face (sort-of) through applications like youTube. Im gonna pretend I'm from the 50's for a second and say that this is pretty neat. Stories, news and ideas are absolutely better expressed and enthusiasm mirrored when you can see a talking real live person expressing something. Reading can lay the fundamentals and the data, but the face is a timeless story teller that is respected in countless cultures as the only means of communication. Even when these cultures acquired writing skills stories were still passed orally because of the impact they have and the traditions that they hold as a daughter learns a folk story from her gramma.

        In closing, I underrepresented our obsession with technology, and there is an obsession. We are our own person but are extremely influenced by technology. I would say you are shaped incredibly if you are an avid CNN watcher, this means that you are heavily shaped by using technology, the television.

Face to Face

         Why face to face? Might as well ask why even live? From a freshman anthro class I took I learned that something like 80% of what we say to each other is non-verbal, and often we are unaware that we are projecting these hidden voices. To me, this says that there is so much more to human interaction than simply writing/reading and talking/listening that I don't want to miss. Why come to college when you could easily listen to the professor over the phone and submit papers online. Why have a drink with your buddy at his house when you could each sit at your own house with drinks respectively and video chat. 

           I think anyone with half a brain should conclude that there is a huge difference between face-to-face interactions as opposed to using other means of communication. The genuine human interaction is lost in translation. Our first class was incredibly different from every single other class I've had this first week precisely because Dr. Dean was there via URL. Class ended early, there was an initial awkward weirdness a drift in the air that we eventually overcame, but what I realized is that people that are used to direction look for direction. Pretty clever of me to figure that one out I know, but what I mean is that when direction is not there, they could take charge, but they would rather not. Even when students were indeed looking for direction, and received it from the web page, there were still hesitant tendencies sprinkled in to what normally may have been confident voices.

         In closing, think about this: Would you rather meet your future wife for the first time in person, or through the Internet? You will love her the same either way, but which would you chose?