The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It - Case Study Presentation

My case study focuses on generative systems, how they evolve, expand, populate the masses, and then become weakened from the very elements that make them successful.

I use the personal computer as my media object as it is a generative system which is adaptable to a great number of functions, all at the user's whim. Compared to an Information Appliance such as the typewriter or the old IBM Mainframe, designed for specific functions, not easily modified, and serviced by the vendor exclusively, the personal computer is designed with a low common denominator, making it easy to configure according to what the owner needs or wants it to do.

The Internet is also a generative system in it's current interaction with personal computers. Collaboration, innovation, ability to adapt to changing conditions are among the many advantages of the generative Web. In fact the Internet was created around the concept of letting it become what it will. The framers decisively held firm to the "procrastination principle", and didn't worry about what problems might occur, rather leaving such issues to the "end-points" to solve as the problems arose. This is what created the Internet as we know it today; a flourishing network of innovation, collaboration, communication, ideas, participation, and so on...

Unfortunately, Zittrain also talks about, (in Derrida style) the very things that make a generative system strong are also it's greatest danger. The dangers come from the exploitation of the network by amateurs and abusers. For example, amateurs unknowingly release harmful code. Contrarily, abusers very knowingly release harmful code. Either way, harmful code circulates the network waves infecting anything and everything it comes into contact with, and in an exponential fashion. So the freedoms that the Internet allows for honest people, also pathes the way for the bad guys.

In reaction and fear to this type of activity, the minds of regulatory personnel start spinning and debating solutions. Instead of applying the "procrastination principle" they will indeed be figuring out ways to stop online hackery and the threat of technological terrorism. So, in a worse case scenario the logical solution would be to disallow interaction with the Internet, relieving the threat that lies within.

I use the scenario of a "Read-Only Internet" as an extreme. There are many, many areas to explore in this discussion. One of them being freedom. Even that in itself opens many avenues of discussion.

However, if regulation deemed the Internet as "Read-Only" how would that effect us? For starters, our personal computers would become mere informational appliances. We could still create and innovate, but it would be more on a personal level. We could only use the Internet for research purposes. We would have no way of collaborating on projects or ideas with people around the world, or for that matter people in our own back yard.

I use extremes to make a point as well as hopefully creating a jumping off point for discussion. I truly, truly hope the Internet will never be "Read-Only" and honestly, I don't think it will ever be, at least in the U.S. My hope in my presentation is to get people thinking about how we as a participatory culture can prevent this from happening on a large scale.

Is privacy really that important?

My response to privacy issues was practically recited word-for-word by EFF in their article, "On Locational Privacy, and How to Avoid Losing it Forever." My stance has always been, "I'm not doing anything wrong so why worry about it". Reading those words as a "common response" definitely caught my attention. So if I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I worry about digital privacy?

As I type these words I realize I do think about it. I am cautious about what I do and say online. I'm careful about the online company I keep as well as things I search for. I have learned that once online, it stays online. It is now common practice for hiring professionals to conduct personal online inquiries in which they form "personal" judgements. Whatever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Recently, I came to the realization that my email signature may even be offensive to some. So, I removed my liberal stamp, along with my "thought-provoking" peace statement. Now, I'm nothing more than a pist off Democrat trapped in a red state with no one to talk to about it but my mom! Such is life.

What I found refreshing about this week's reading was the blog by Aspen (what a great name) Baker. She did not reveal her secret, but I would love to know what it takes to keep an online community private. Whatever she has done, I think she hit the nail on the head. We should be able to trust our online communications to the people we choose to share them with.

To that, one will most definitely argue, "What about terrorists?" I am certainly one of those. This is where I am conflicted. I am also conflicted on the many other online activities that prove as evidence in criminal wrong-doing. Where do we draw the line? Can we draw a line? I am very much on the fence on this issue. EFF made very logical assessments. Do I want someone to know my every move? The answer to that is probably "no", but like I said, safety issues aside, I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care? My only response to these issues is, "If you don't want to be found out, don't do it digitally."

Similar case in point, the TSA security measures have recently been a hot topic of debate. If you don't want to be groped, don't fly. I would walk through an airport naked if it meant I would get to my destination safely. Yes, it's a sad day when we have to come to these measures, but it is now a fact of life, and I'm pretty sure most folks would prefer preventative measures before another 911. Privilege and freedom come with a price. I say, if you're not doing anything wrong, quit bitching about small sacrifices and think about the one's who have given the ultimate sacrifice protecting your personal freedoms.

Redemption of the fourth estate, or just another venture in capitalism?

While Ted Koppel's op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post wasn't on the list, I found it rounded out this week's reading quite nicely. In his article, Koppel remembers a time when television news was objective and honest, when journalists reported the true state of affairs, and when the fourth estate, as intended, kept an unbiased, watchful eye over government activities. Of course that was also before networks figured out news could generate revenue. I guess they decided churning a profit was more important than churning the truth. I'm not going to lump all of today's journalists into one group as Koppel did, but his opinions are well-founded for a good number of them.

The issue at hand, however, is not what happened 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. The issue at hand is how we, as a participatory culture, combat what journalism has become. The current state of dominant news media consists of charismatic personalities with open wallets. While the righties head for the bank, the lefties head for MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I also know which side they're pulling for, and I shouldn't.

Ted Koppel also states in his article, "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible." If that is true, we are seriously doomed, and on many, many levels. However, Boler gives me hope. The fact that we are aware gives me hope, and the fact that she and others have put theories into place gives me hope. The question now is how to put these theories into action. Collectively how can we establish a near equivalent to the objective honesty that once existed? How can we as a participatory culture realize and report the truth?

Boler suggests it must come from a grassroots movement where, "All are interested in challenging and intervening in dominant media structures, and in cutting across modes of distribution with aims of resisting the messages and form of dominant media".

So my question again, how do we do this? Boler provides a list of possibilities, but how do we enlist the trust of the masses? More importantly, how do we enlist the trust of each other? It takes support and it takes money. We have already established that honest news doesn't generate revenue. How long before we see ourselves in the mirror of our opposition?

Perhaps my once youthful optimism has been tainted by the practices of everyday life. My hopes of "changing the world" have been reduced to hopes of making changes in my own life. But even as I succumb to the realities of my culture, I have not given in to its ignorance.

On some level I do still have hope that the American people will wake up to the fact that the only objective of dominant news media is partisan perception, in some cases outright dishonesty. The youth of our nation are already clued in to this fact. Thankfully they are the future of this great country. At the same time, it saddens me that parody and satire are the preferred media portals for these same individuals. In retrospect, I guess the whole situation is funny in a sad sort of way.

If the internet is the answer to redeeming the fourth estate, I say hoorah for the good guys. But as Boler suggests, the term itself may be apt for a new definition. Perhaps one that includes the watchful eye of the people. If the government knows we as a people are watching them and reporting the real facts, perhaps then we can get back to the fabric that makes America a great nation.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace..."

...I borrowed that line from an email a friend sent me, who borrowed it from Jimi Hendrix. Now I'm using it online, to share with you. I admit, a little tame compared to Girl Talk, but hopefully you get the point.

The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this:  The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)

The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.

Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.

It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."

This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.

Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.

Multitasking mediocrity...

Yes, the many, many media streams do indeed keep us in a constant state of imagined crisis. Fortunately it hasn't really affected me too much, probably because I was raised in the "deep attention" generation (I don't feel the need to answer every phone call, text message, or email as soon as it arrives). Twitter seems to be calling my name a little more often though, so perhaps there is hope.

A couple things I found interesting in both Hayles' reading and Stone's presentation were the cognitive shift(s) that are taking place. The human mind is a very complex machine and its ability to adapt to different environmental conditions is quite remarkable. Now I understand better why some people think differently than me.

Growing up I remember my occupations were watching television (one of only three channels), listening to music, practicing piano, talking on the phone or playing with friends, and doing homework. All of these activities were centered on the activity itself. The word "multitasking" had yet to be coined (at least to my knowledge) and distractions were rare. I sat in solitude while I did my homework or practiced my piano, deeply attending to the completion of the activity at hand. It wasn't until years later that the concept of "multitasking" became the buzzword that it is today.

My definition of "multitasking" is being able to simultaneously work on multiple tasks while also being able to give each task the concentration it requires as if it were the only task being attended to. It's not merely a matter of doing two or more things at one time. Multitasking requires a total and complete shift in mindset in order for multitasking to be successful.

In other words, if someone claims they are multitasking, the result of each completed task must be of equal quality as if they had each been attended to in succession rather than simultaneously. For example, a fifteen year old is hired to keep the score of a basketball game. This activity in itself takes a good amount of undivided attention. However, while s/he is supposed to be keeping score, s/he is also texting with friends. When confronted, the teen says, "I can multitask", even though the purpose of the confrontation was the frequent inaccuracy of the score. In this example, multitasking clearly does not work because the quality of one of the tasks has been compromised.

This is where I become cynical when discussing this trend toward a culture of multitasking. My cynicism lies in the question of details that could become lost due to lack of deep attention? Will "Generation M" understand that certain things require more attention than others, while still other matters require complete attention?

The thing I find most interesting in Hayles' article is when the topic of AD/HD enters into the conversation, drawing links between "hyper" attention and the aforementioned cognitive disorder. I understand the commonalities, however one is a biological disorder while the other appears to be a cultural malfunction. We do not have control over the amount of media  available to us. We do, however, have control over how much of that media we allow our children to consume. If an otherwise non-AD/HD child has to take Ritalin in order to perform well in school, there is something very wrong.

Good parenting requires regulating a child's consumption of anything that could be detrimental to that child's welfare, including over-consumption of media. Is it necessary to give children mobile phones with texting or internet capabilities? The current issues of "sexting" and "cyberbullying" could be limited if these options were not made available to kids under the age of 18. Similarly, a regulation such as this would put the purpose of the mobile phone into perspective for this age group.

Taking this idea a step further, why are social networking sites made available to kids under the age of 18? Furthermore, why do parents allow their children to participate on these sites at home? I believe the responsibility begins and ends with the parents. There are reasons for age restrictions, all having to do with the ability to handle the responsibilities that go along with the privilege.

A cultural shift is obviously taking place and I do find it intriguing. To imply, as Halyes does in her article, that "Children growing up in media-rich environments literally have brains wired differently than humans who did not come to maturity in such conditions" is simply fascinating. Additionally, as Hayles mentions, it is a condition that educators will have to come to terms with in order to be effective in their roles. A compromise between the two polarities of "hyper" attention and "deep" attention would indeed be an ideal scenario, and if educators could establish and maintain such a condition I think real progress could be made.

Therefore, I think what lies beneath these issues is perhaps thinking in terms of teaching our children how to manage a media-rich environment. A system might look like this: Kindergarten through 12th grade - limited forms of media are used for educational purposes only. Undergraduate settings - embrace previously limited forms of media in order to teach students how to use them both responsibly and professionally. A system like this would in no way discount the relevance of technology; it would simply impress the importance of different media tools in the right place and at the right time.

In reality, technology is nothing more than a set of tools. A powerful set of tools which, through continued progress, will provide great possibilities for not only our generation, but for all future generations to come. Technology is also changing our culture, creating opportunities and efficiencies our forefathers could not have imagined. But like every other set of tools, the proper uses of technology must also be taught. If we don't start these teachings at a young age by incrementally focusing on the situational pros and cons of each type of attention, progress could potentially give way to an over-stimulated culture of self-indulged mediocrity. A mediocrity hidden behind the more politically correct guise of multitasking.

...but is it probable?

Collective Intelligence left me feeling like a nebulous being floating within a larger cultural specimen being dissected and analyzed by those who fancy such studies. In this particular instance, the bunny men are microscopically drawing diagrams, relationships, interactions (or lack there of), and speculating outcomes of the fourth cultural space as it relates to its predecessors. Levy speaks of this fourth, or knowledge space, as perhaps a terminating space from which those who proceed its final formulation could enjoy the solutions to the thousands of years of strife that have come before. For the first time in my life, I feel like a part of history instead of a part of making history. A hard pill to swallow, especially in angst of my recent birthday.

I do however try to imagine how this whole idea of collective intelligence might play out. In Levy's Utopian scenario it plays out perfectly (of course): democracy by the people, for the people. After all, that's what our founding fathers had in mind, right? It was only when populations exceeded a realistic voice that we had to switch to government by representation. Now that we once again have the possibility of true democracy in the sights of our imagination, will we be able to return to a democracy truly by the people? A better question, will the powers that be allow us to return to such a system?

If collective intelligence is what our founding fathers intended, how will we achieve such collaboration in favor of good for the people? Has the current system divided us beyond repair, or will a system of demodynamics help us to overcome our differences? Given the opportunity, I think the latter would prevail. The majority of people care about equal rights for all. The majority of people are tired of corporations effecting policy. The majority of people want the same opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, handicap, and so on, and the majority of people want to see these rights acknowledged and enforced.

Will collective intelligence in action affect the status quo? Indeed it will. Potentially greater than anything we have seen before. It will certainly disengage our state representatives as conduits to "what's best for the people". Their services will no longer be needed or desired. That is not to say that a core assembly of administrative officials should be displaced. Quite the opposite is true. Even a democracy based on collective intelligence needs a system of checks and balances.

My question is how this Utopian scenario might be put into practice? Is it possible? Is it feasible? It is certainly imaginable. What would the infrastructure look like and who would build it? How would the input and output be managed or filtered? How would we come to a consensus and how would our consensus' effect change? Case in point:  The war we are currently engaged in. If we as a collective, "vote" against the war, how would that effect the overall state of affairs? Could we simply disengage? As Levy mentioned, these types of decisions are slow moving. Would this cause frustration?

On a larger scale, how would our relationships with other countries be handled? Foreign affairs often (if not always) affect us directly. How would we come to a collective consensus on issues like trade relations, immigration, terrorism? How would we go about correcting the mistakes our predecessors made, both here and abroad, if that's even possible?

I can imagine Levy's land of Utopia. But, it is just that, Utopia. If anything even remotely resembling a transition of this magnitude were to take place, it would (obviously) take years to transpire. Years that most of us probably don't have.

The real issues at hand....

In reading the blogs from a few of my class mates regarding this week's discussion topic, I found the polarity of opinions very interesting. One blogger felt that it is OK to download music illegally, and justified it by placing it under the umbrella of "file sharing". Another blogger, while fully sensitive to the implications of illegal downloading was somewhat confused by the two terms, "illegal downloading" vs. "file sharing".

In my mind, the two terms are different:  Illegal downloading is acquiring an object for free that otherwise should have been paid for. File sharing is simply sharing information online. I don't think there is any harm in sharing files if those files were acquired legally. I think the question that does fit under the same umbrella is whether the files you are sharing were intended, by the author, to be shared at no cost.

Something else I found interesting in a couple of the blogs I read was an attitude of "..this is what my generation does, and if you don't like it then you need to change your system". An artist makes h/er living by using their skills and expertise, just as we make our living(s) using our skills and expertise. Would you consider it fair if your boss decided he didn't want to pay you? The fact of the matter is it's illegal, and furthermore you would not be able to make a living. You would pursue the appropriate legal channels to ensure payment for your services.

A third, and much larger issue, that perhaps confused the discussion even further, is the question of what should be protected and to what extent. This is where the waters start to get a little murky on some levels. For example, if you use a quote from a book that is protected under copyright law, it is perfectly OK as long as you put it in quotation marks and give attribution to the author. Yet the debate rages on whether it's OK to sample beats from various artists' songs to create a new song that you call your own. In the former you are paying homage to the author by using h/er words in your own literary piece. However, in the latter it is considered copyright infringement or stealing. If attribution were given, would that make a difference? Or is it simply a matter of how the two institutions approach copyright? Or, is it something different all together? Perhaps this is where the greed of corporate America comes into play, which is the larger debate needing to be explored.

I wanted to identify these issues separately in an attempt to simplify the various areas of debate. The first two issues I mentioned are pretty much straight forward, at least in my mind. The third issue, I believe, is where the conversation needs to be focused. A couple of cases in point include Hollywood's global monopoly on entertainment. A second case is that of pharmaceutical companies who would rather gain financially than to collaborate with the larger scientific community to perhaps discover cures for diseases for the public good. As Kim mentioned in class, no research is currently being done to find a cure for Aids because there is more money to be made by not finding a cure. These are the types of issues I feel need to be addressed. These are the corporate giants that are hiding behind patents and copyright laws for their own financial gains, rather than caring about what's best or the people. The same dynamics are at work in the insurance industry. It is practice to find legal ways to deny coverage or to drop you altogether.

These are the areas we need to focus on. These are the areas that need change. How to go about making these types of changes is difficult because of all the powerful players involved. But it is certainly a stepping off point for discussion.