Okay so I realize that through my journey of writing this blog I have yet to really say everything I personally want to say about the Internet, more specifically technology.
I would not consider myself the typical teenager. No offence to others of my generation. What I mean by this is that I am not the girl who sits in front of her computer screen for hours posting and blogging and tweeting and god knows what else. I would much rather read one of my favourite books over again, or work on one my paintings, or even just lay back and chill with my dog. I do not see myself as a very technology driven individual. And despite everything that I have said on this blog, that is something I do not want to change about myself.
Do not get me wrong I appreciate that opportunities the Internet offers and I will admit I do use the Internet more than a couple times a day. If I had to choose a side, I would say that I am a supporter of the Internet. I think this is how I feel because I basically grew up with it. So maybe if I was just a tad bit older I would not feel so strongly for the Internet. But this is not the case.
I think what I am trying to get at is that I like having the Internet around, when its appropriate. I do not like the fact that the Internet has taken over the majority of teenagers lives and that people are suffering from Internet addiction. In that sense I feel as though all of this has gone way too far. But in reality, I know that in todays society, the Internet is a necessity. It is how we communicate and function. without it I am confident that we would all have to reteach ourselves how to live with one another.
Now, technology. Generally speaking, I am not against all of these technological advances that have become very popular over the last few years. I am an owner of an iPhone and I am currently typing all of this on a MacBook Pro. So it is safe to say I like my technology as much as the next gal. However I do think there is room for improvement, or un-improvement if you will. I believe that people, including myself, have become too dependant on technology. I think to truly figure out who you are you need to take a step back, without the numerous devices, and live your life accordingly. Who knows maybe the Mayans have it right. Maybe by the end of this year everything will be different.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Should We Be Open Or Close Minded?
Open source software.
Anyone else out there that has no idea what this means?
Don't worry I was right there with you. I will be the first to admit that I am not in the least bit Internet savvy. It is terms like this that would normally completely go over my head. But now that I have had the opportunity to study these topics over a period of time and reading material, I feel as though I have a slightly better understanding.
Now back to open source software. This is basically the notion to allow other people to copy, alter, and share your own software. The condition to this is that they must do the same with whatever they redistribute.
Personally I do not see an issue with this concept in the slightest. I agree with the idea that the Internet should be free open space in any capacity. I do not support the use of restrictions on what you can and can not upload. Besides is that not what the Internet is all about? Sharing and informing.
Collaboration is the way to a better future. Like they say two heads are better than one. Well what about millions of heads? The Internet is the one tool that allows people to work together from all point of the earth. I am a firm believer in teamwork and cooperation. I do not think I could ever be in support of closed software. Coming together to create new content from old content is what is going to keep the Internet alive and thriving.
I don't know about you, but I know I am not certainly ready to say good bye to the Internet.
Anyone else out there that has no idea what this means?
Don't worry I was right there with you. I will be the first to admit that I am not in the least bit Internet savvy. It is terms like this that would normally completely go over my head. But now that I have had the opportunity to study these topics over a period of time and reading material, I feel as though I have a slightly better understanding.
Now back to open source software. This is basically the notion to allow other people to copy, alter, and share your own software. The condition to this is that they must do the same with whatever they redistribute.
Personally I do not see an issue with this concept in the slightest. I agree with the idea that the Internet should be free open space in any capacity. I do not support the use of restrictions on what you can and can not upload. Besides is that not what the Internet is all about? Sharing and informing.
Collaboration is the way to a better future. Like they say two heads are better than one. Well what about millions of heads? The Internet is the one tool that allows people to work together from all point of the earth. I am a firm believer in teamwork and cooperation. I do not think I could ever be in support of closed software. Coming together to create new content from old content is what is going to keep the Internet alive and thriving.
I don't know about you, but I know I am not certainly ready to say good bye to the Internet.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Ay Ay Captain!
"Shiver me timbers", "Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum", "Ahoy matey", "Ye scallywag", "Ye walk the plank"
Is any of this sounding familiar? If not here's another hint...Pirates.
These are some of the phrases that come to mind when I hear the word pirate. That and images of a big wooden ship, treasure chests, and Johnny Depp of course.
But these are not the pirates that we have to worry about today. Maybe a better word for them is modern day pirates. But regardless of what you call them, they essentially all do the same thing. They steal. They spend their time taking work competed by others and calling it their own or remixing it without giving credit where credit is due. Based on this description it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to keep them around. That is because this is what I bought of them before I read the second chapter of Matt Mason's book The Pirate's Dilemma.
In his book, Mason makes it very clear that he is in full support of pirates and what they do. After reading it I can say that I do have a new found appreciation for them.
Pirates do in a sense steal content, this is true. But they are also making what they steal "better". This is where the idea of remixing comes back. As i mentioned in a an earlier blog, remixing is taking something and adding and subtracting parts of it to make it better. The best example of this is taking a popular song by a well known artist and making an entirely new song with remnants of the original. This is what pirates essentially do. They take originals and make them their own which they then release and take credit for without giving "proper" credit. That in my opinion is the issue that many people have with these pirates. I d not think people are offended by others reinterpreting their art, I think they are offended by the fact that they are not receiving any credit of profit. But really who is to stop these individuals from their own version of freedom of expression. We all know we enjoy the work they put out there whether we admit it or not.
The advances in the Internet have only made the pirates tasks easier. It now takes half the effort for them to access the original content. And it has become even easier to share the altered content online through social media sites. Their messages can now be accessed world wide and now almost nothing can stop them.
Another reason we can thank pirates is the fact that they provide access to free music and streaming video. Anyone who says that they do not download free music or watch movies or television shows online through torrent sites is probably lying. I have trouble believing no one has done this in the past. I will freely admit that I do on a regular basis.
Pirates are a bigger part of our online worlds than we know. But if they were ever to disappear entirely, you can't bet we would all notice.
Godspeed my fellow buccaneers.
I Think I Know All Of My Facebook Friends
Oh social media, where would we be without you?
In my opinion we would be in a much better place. I hate how dependent people have become on social media sites. Checking Facebook accounts and twitter feeds seems to be the only thing people do with their free time anymore. It has become a part of everyone's daily routine. And I am speaking from experience. I'll admit that in this case I am being completely hypocritical. I too have a Facebook account that I check throughout the day. However, I have never posted one picture on to Facebook, I rarely post anything, and if I am ever tagged in a photo I do not want associated with me, I remove the tag immediately. On top of all of that, Facebook is the only social media account I have and regularly use. Perhaps this is why it is so easy for me to see the issues that sites like these raise.
The main concern that has been brought up in reference to these sites is the issue of privacy. These sites are free and do not require background checks. Anyone can make an account real or fake. In the article Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance by Anders Albrechtslund, he uses the term "a snoops dream". I was shocked at how true this statement was. I have always been aware of the dangers of social networking but I have never heard it put in this way before. For some reason it struck me. Perhaps because of how true it is. Online social networking could be compared to heaven for a peeping tom or a sex offender. How could it not be. There are FREE websites which can be accessed at ANYTIME ANYWHERE BY ANYONE. There is nothing stopping these kinds of people because teens are so free with what they are posting. In Albrechtslund's article he quotes Jon Callas (who is the chief security officer at the encryption software maker PGP) "I am continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves".
Now if people are so intent on posting things about themselves for the world to see they should at least have control over who in that world has access. This is where privacy settings come into play. People may not realize it but privacy settings could be saving you from dangerous situations. They are not just there to hide embarrassing pictures from your parents, they are there to keep people with the wrong intentions from having complete access to your account. If there was ever a bright side to social networking, this is it.
Another point that Albrechtslund raises in his article is the reminder that the Internet is like an elephant, it never forgets. Once something is out there, it stays there. People may think that deleting something off the web is just as easy as posting it there. The people that do believe this are in for the shock of their lives. The Internet is like an enormous archive of EVERYTHING. Nothing gets deleted, it just gets filed. The problem with this is that your past can very easily come back to haunt you. For example, a sixteen year old posts a picture on their account of them intoxicated at a party. Now at the time it seems like the perfect picture for their display picture. However, 15 years later when that same sixteen year old is applying for a job and the company does a background check and finds said picture, do you really think that is the person they are going to hire? Not a chance. Because of something that was posted years ago, this person lost a job opportunity.
All of this makes you think you should probably put more thought into what you post online and who you let see it.
In my opinion we would be in a much better place. I hate how dependent people have become on social media sites. Checking Facebook accounts and twitter feeds seems to be the only thing people do with their free time anymore. It has become a part of everyone's daily routine. And I am speaking from experience. I'll admit that in this case I am being completely hypocritical. I too have a Facebook account that I check throughout the day. However, I have never posted one picture on to Facebook, I rarely post anything, and if I am ever tagged in a photo I do not want associated with me, I remove the tag immediately. On top of all of that, Facebook is the only social media account I have and regularly use. Perhaps this is why it is so easy for me to see the issues that sites like these raise.
The main concern that has been brought up in reference to these sites is the issue of privacy. These sites are free and do not require background checks. Anyone can make an account real or fake. In the article Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance by Anders Albrechtslund, he uses the term "a snoops dream". I was shocked at how true this statement was. I have always been aware of the dangers of social networking but I have never heard it put in this way before. For some reason it struck me. Perhaps because of how true it is. Online social networking could be compared to heaven for a peeping tom or a sex offender. How could it not be. There are FREE websites which can be accessed at ANYTIME ANYWHERE BY ANYONE. There is nothing stopping these kinds of people because teens are so free with what they are posting. In Albrechtslund's article he quotes Jon Callas (who is the chief security officer at the encryption software maker PGP) "I am continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves".
Now if people are so intent on posting things about themselves for the world to see they should at least have control over who in that world has access. This is where privacy settings come into play. People may not realize it but privacy settings could be saving you from dangerous situations. They are not just there to hide embarrassing pictures from your parents, they are there to keep people with the wrong intentions from having complete access to your account. If there was ever a bright side to social networking, this is it.
Another point that Albrechtslund raises in his article is the reminder that the Internet is like an elephant, it never forgets. Once something is out there, it stays there. People may think that deleting something off the web is just as easy as posting it there. The people that do believe this are in for the shock of their lives. The Internet is like an enormous archive of EVERYTHING. Nothing gets deleted, it just gets filed. The problem with this is that your past can very easily come back to haunt you. For example, a sixteen year old posts a picture on their account of them intoxicated at a party. Now at the time it seems like the perfect picture for their display picture. However, 15 years later when that same sixteen year old is applying for a job and the company does a background check and finds said picture, do you really think that is the person they are going to hire? Not a chance. Because of something that was posted years ago, this person lost a job opportunity.
All of this makes you think you should probably put more thought into what you post online and who you let see it.
Time For A Pros And Cons List?
Web 2.0
This is where the ideas for my blog posts have sprouted from. I figured it was about time I dive into the complexities the topic of Web 2.0 brings.
First of all what is Web 2.0? In all honestly for the longest time I never realized there was a Web 1.0, let alone a Web 2.0. From what I now understand it is a newer version or a remix of the Internet. Newer, more user-friendly features were added allowing it to become more easily used world wide.
Now like everything else in this world you cannot have your cake and eat it too. In my experience with every piece of good news there is usually some bad news not to far behind. So what is wrong with Web 2.0?
Lets start with whats right about it. This new Internet is so much more than it was before. It has expanded itself into this new world which allows people to be whoever they want to be, do whatever they want to do, and say whatever they want to say. The possibilities are endless. With this new web, the only word I can think of to describe it is OPEN. It is free. No restrictions. A place for freedom of expression. It is a world in which you can easily work with people who are on the other side of the world. Language barriers no longer exists because on the web, everyone speaks the same language. There are places for people to collaborate on ideas, to work together on projects. Developing ideas has become second nature as opposed to a chore. We have created a new world for ourselves and now we get to enjoy it.
With all of the things that is amazing about Web 2.0 there has got to be something seriously wrong with it. So what is the issue. Probably one of the biggest issues that completely went over my head for the longest time was the issue of who is running it. Why is it so successful? Is there some higher power working 24/7 to keep the Internet the self-sustaining force that it is? No there isn't. For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, the person running the web is YOU! By us using blogs and social networking sites and creating new web pages, we are the ones running the web. So what? Who cares? If it is something we enjoy doing whats the big issue? The problem with this is that even though we are the ones doing all of the work, we are not receiving any of the profits. We are offering free labour without even knowing it. We are the ones keeping the Internet popular. So are we being used? Or, better question, are we okay with it? Based on the fact that the Internet has lasted this long, I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon, so my answer to that would be yes. As long as were are okay with it, the Internet is always going to be the control centre for free labour.
Without popularity the Internet would be nothing. Just like how a Hollywood actress is nothing but a drama queen with a big house. Without popularity there is no power that the Internet can hold over us. So does that mean once we get tired of the Internet it will just go away? Theres only one way to find out. Looks like we have got some waiting to do.
This is where the ideas for my blog posts have sprouted from. I figured it was about time I dive into the complexities the topic of Web 2.0 brings.
First of all what is Web 2.0? In all honestly for the longest time I never realized there was a Web 1.0, let alone a Web 2.0. From what I now understand it is a newer version or a remix of the Internet. Newer, more user-friendly features were added allowing it to become more easily used world wide.
Now like everything else in this world you cannot have your cake and eat it too. In my experience with every piece of good news there is usually some bad news not to far behind. So what is wrong with Web 2.0?
Lets start with whats right about it. This new Internet is so much more than it was before. It has expanded itself into this new world which allows people to be whoever they want to be, do whatever they want to do, and say whatever they want to say. The possibilities are endless. With this new web, the only word I can think of to describe it is OPEN. It is free. No restrictions. A place for freedom of expression. It is a world in which you can easily work with people who are on the other side of the world. Language barriers no longer exists because on the web, everyone speaks the same language. There are places for people to collaborate on ideas, to work together on projects. Developing ideas has become second nature as opposed to a chore. We have created a new world for ourselves and now we get to enjoy it.
With all of the things that is amazing about Web 2.0 there has got to be something seriously wrong with it. So what is the issue. Probably one of the biggest issues that completely went over my head for the longest time was the issue of who is running it. Why is it so successful? Is there some higher power working 24/7 to keep the Internet the self-sustaining force that it is? No there isn't. For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, the person running the web is YOU! By us using blogs and social networking sites and creating new web pages, we are the ones running the web. So what? Who cares? If it is something we enjoy doing whats the big issue? The problem with this is that even though we are the ones doing all of the work, we are not receiving any of the profits. We are offering free labour without even knowing it. We are the ones keeping the Internet popular. So are we being used? Or, better question, are we okay with it? Based on the fact that the Internet has lasted this long, I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon, so my answer to that would be yes. As long as were are okay with it, the Internet is always going to be the control centre for free labour.
Without popularity the Internet would be nothing. Just like how a Hollywood actress is nothing but a drama queen with a big house. Without popularity there is no power that the Internet can hold over us. So does that mean once we get tired of the Internet it will just go away? Theres only one way to find out. Looks like we have got some waiting to do.
Who's Idea Was It Anyways?
What does original mean? Does it even exist in this new society? Original can be defined as work composed firsthand. But is that still true?
I never gave much thought to the word remix. All i ever thought it meant was when someone took a song and altered it into something new. Little did I know that remixing was much more than that.
The word remix covers a lot more than music. It can also be applied to ideas. To remix something is to take an original idea and then add or take away from it to create something new. Whether it be a popular song or a piece of technology.
For example, the iPod. Many would say that the iPod is at the top. Today it is very uncommon to see someone using something other than an iPod to listen to their playlists. It is probably safe to say that everyone thinks the iPod is the first of its kind, I know I did. Of course we all know about the MP3 player, but the iPod is so much more than the MP3 that it hardly seems fair to consider them the same. But what most people don't know is that the iPod's sleek design is in fact not original. If one were to compare the iPod to the TR-1, the similarities would not go unnoticed. So is the iPod really original?
Originality is something that everybody strives for. This is somewhat comical considering know one really knows what original is anymore. People that think they are being original by wearing their parent's old clothes from the 80s are sadly mistaken. Out of style does not mean original. Obviously if someone wore it before you, you are not being original.
Nothing is original today. All of our styles and technologies have been thought of elsewhere at a different time. All we have been doing over the years is taking what someone has already thought of and tweaking it until we believe its better. So the idea can no longer be considered original because we are not the ones that though of it.
This act of tweaking and adjusting is called remixing. Taking the original and adding new ideas to it. One example of a remix in action is when Madonna's attempt to stop illegal downloading backfired. When she released her new album she new there would be pirates waiting to illegally download it for free. So as a way to stop them she set up link to false pages where individuals who thought they were getting free access to her new songs were instead given a little surprise. Oh they definitely got to hear Madonna's voice, just not in one of her songs. Instead they got to hear her screaming at them asking what the f*** do you think your doing?! Naturally these pirates were not to happy with her little surprise. So they retaliated. They took her little voice recording and turned it into a song. Suffice to say people were entertained by this for quite awhile. Contests were set up to see who could create the best remix out of her recording. Apparently some people were not done with her takedown and continued to hack into her own website where her new album, the one she worked so hard to protect, became free for download for whoever wanted it.
The remix can be considered a lot of things. Freedom of expression, retaliation, boredom. But one things for sure. Everything in today's society is in someway a remix of something from our past.
Flipping a Page or Scrolling Down?
When reading the fifth chapter of Siva Vaidhyanathan's book The Googilization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry), I could not help but be intrigued by the idea of online books.
I do consider myself an avid reader. There has been more than one instance where I have bought a book and then found myself staying up all night until I finished it. I have read entire novels in less than a day. Friends and family have often looked at me in amazement. They don't understand how I can be so still for so long. My answer to this is simple. When I find a novel that touches on subjects that I find interesting or that I can relate to I am brought to another world where time does not exist. I immerse myself into the lives of the fictional characters, enabling myself to relate to them. All I know is that when I read, I never want the story to end.
Perhaps this is why the theory of "Google Books" is very interesting to me. The first thing that came to mind when I read of this idea was genius. I truly thought it was an amazing idea. The sheer convenience of books on the Internet was enough to sell me on the idea. Any book you want with the click of a button. But then I realized something. Part of the reason I love reading is because I love books. I cannot picture myself cuddling up with my computer late at night entranced in a novel. I'm addicted to the comfort physical books give me. I love folding over the corner of my page. I love the feeling of a worn out spine. These are things that I would miss if they were to suddenly disappear.
Do not get me wrong I do appreciate the Internet and all of the things it is capable of. But I do still believe that some things are meant to stay as they are. I believe that if something is not broken one shouldn't try to fix it. Let things be, has become my mantra of sorts.
Apparently I am not the only one who felt this way. When the concept of Google Books first arose, many distinguished individuals were very supportive. Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor and copyright reform advocate, stated "a good deal that could be the basis for something really fantastic" (Vaidhyanathan 153). It was not too long later that he came to another realization "the settlement would not only fail to loosen up American copyright law but might even restrict and commercialize the flow of digital knowledge" (Vaidhyanathan 153). No surprise later he withdrew his previous support.
After careful scrutiny, others came forward with their negative opinions of Google Books. Some include Robert Darnton who just so happens to be the head of one of the original Google library partner, Harvard University Libraries. the government of France and Germany felt that "Google Books would give Google an unfair advantage in the market for out-of-print texts" (Vaidhyanathan 153). Book author is China even went to the extent of suing Google for scanning their books without permission, infringing this copyrights. Before the concept ever even took off, multiple parties disagreed with its creation.
Clearly these parties have different reason for not agreeing with the development of Google Books than I do. Their main concern is the issue of copyright. By scanning the books of these distinguished universities, Google would be infringing on the copyright laws developed many years ago. This is definitely an extreme issue of concern. obviously these laws were put in place for a reason. They are there to protect the rights of any and all authors and contributors who would be at risk of being plagiarized.
Ultimately Google Books failed. It brought up far to many issue for anyone to support its cause. In retrospect it was a good idea. But as I mentioned before there will be times when the Internet is not the answer and that things should be left as they are.
References
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "The Googlization of Knowledge: The Googlization of Books."The Googlization of Everything: (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley: University of California, 2011. 153. Print.
I do consider myself an avid reader. There has been more than one instance where I have bought a book and then found myself staying up all night until I finished it. I have read entire novels in less than a day. Friends and family have often looked at me in amazement. They don't understand how I can be so still for so long. My answer to this is simple. When I find a novel that touches on subjects that I find interesting or that I can relate to I am brought to another world where time does not exist. I immerse myself into the lives of the fictional characters, enabling myself to relate to them. All I know is that when I read, I never want the story to end.
Perhaps this is why the theory of "Google Books" is very interesting to me. The first thing that came to mind when I read of this idea was genius. I truly thought it was an amazing idea. The sheer convenience of books on the Internet was enough to sell me on the idea. Any book you want with the click of a button. But then I realized something. Part of the reason I love reading is because I love books. I cannot picture myself cuddling up with my computer late at night entranced in a novel. I'm addicted to the comfort physical books give me. I love folding over the corner of my page. I love the feeling of a worn out spine. These are things that I would miss if they were to suddenly disappear.
Do not get me wrong I do appreciate the Internet and all of the things it is capable of. But I do still believe that some things are meant to stay as they are. I believe that if something is not broken one shouldn't try to fix it. Let things be, has become my mantra of sorts.
Apparently I am not the only one who felt this way. When the concept of Google Books first arose, many distinguished individuals were very supportive. Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor and copyright reform advocate, stated "a good deal that could be the basis for something really fantastic" (Vaidhyanathan 153). It was not too long later that he came to another realization "the settlement would not only fail to loosen up American copyright law but might even restrict and commercialize the flow of digital knowledge" (Vaidhyanathan 153). No surprise later he withdrew his previous support.
After careful scrutiny, others came forward with their negative opinions of Google Books. Some include Robert Darnton who just so happens to be the head of one of the original Google library partner, Harvard University Libraries. the government of France and Germany felt that "Google Books would give Google an unfair advantage in the market for out-of-print texts" (Vaidhyanathan 153). Book author is China even went to the extent of suing Google for scanning their books without permission, infringing this copyrights. Before the concept ever even took off, multiple parties disagreed with its creation.
Clearly these parties have different reason for not agreeing with the development of Google Books than I do. Their main concern is the issue of copyright. By scanning the books of these distinguished universities, Google would be infringing on the copyright laws developed many years ago. This is definitely an extreme issue of concern. obviously these laws were put in place for a reason. They are there to protect the rights of any and all authors and contributors who would be at risk of being plagiarized.
Ultimately Google Books failed. It brought up far to many issue for anyone to support its cause. In retrospect it was a good idea. But as I mentioned before there will be times when the Internet is not the answer and that things should be left as they are.
References
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "The Googlization of Knowledge: The Googlization of Books."The Googlization of Everything: (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley: University of California, 2011. 153. Print.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)