A Note on Control and Children

Control on the internet has become a large issue in contemporary society because it is perceived as a medium for free speech. Many users of the internet are aghast at the concept of government control of the internet. However, total lack of government control is not a desirable method to any one either. The government regulates contracts and the enforcement of them as well as any legal or commercial disputes that may be produced over the internet.

Despite the backlash against government internet control over adult use, there has been a wave of parents who want restrictions and limitations placed on children's use of the internet. Because children are seen as vulnerable and in need of protection, people feel that children should be subject to special treatment. Laws would protect them so that they will not be exposed to adult situations that are beyond their ability to handle. Thus, the federal law for children on the internet was passed.

This law explicitly details how children's sites should be governed and what restrictions must be in place to make the site a "safe" environment for children. It is supposed to protect children.

Federal law governing the internet is a good idea, especially with children because there are a plethora of websites on the internet that are not appropriate for children to visit. Furthermore, the law will protect them from sexual predators and allow them to have a positive experience of the internet. Though children can seek out racy sites, adult content should not be exposed to unsolicited children. We can't protect them from everything, but I believe it is important to protect them from things that are unnecessary.

-Jessica Cha

Facebook's "25 Random Things"

Of course, you're all well-versed in the note, "25 Random Things," by now. But my friend actually just sent me this Slate article, and it is actually really intriguing! The goal, albeit an unrealistic one, was to track down the "creator" of the note. While no person was ever found and credited with birthing the note, over 3000 Slate people responded to a series of inquiries regarding "25 Random Things." The results, according to the Slate journalist, reveal a trend that resembles the "classic exponential growth of an epidemic curve."

Apparently, the trends revealed in the recorded posting and sharing of "25 Random Things" corroborates the hypothesis that catchy online ideas propagate according to evolutionary principles of mutation and selection. I think this only has a chance of holding true if the "ideas" are short enough to catch a user's attention, and entertaining enough to warrant a passing on. In any case, this might be useful to anyone doing research on social dynamics and Facebook. It definitely says a lot about the evolution of culture, whether virtual or in real life.

Facebook terms of service- they can do anything they want with your info

I wasn't sure if anyone posted this already but my friend just sent it to me an hour ago. It talks about the new terms of service agreement... Basically the new terms states that facebook own everything on it.. Now if we thought of facebook as a place... and our profiles as space... then that's like saying that we have to leave all our belongings in the space because we don't own it. The article has the responses from facebook that claim it is a protective measure.

It is just frightening to imagine that even if i close my account my information will not be closed along with it... also there is a fact that many people don't know what they are getting themselves into by agreeing to the terms of service.

but with all these contracts online.. what does this show about our "privacy" online?

Internet Celebrities

Weezer - "Pork and Beans"

If we really wanted to, we could upload our own videos onto YouTube and become Internet sensations. Many Average Joes (e.g. Tay Zonday, Chris Crocker) have caught onto the trend and scored deals to augment their actual-world celebrity statuses. For example, Tay Zonday has performed live on The Jimmy Kimmel Show, shot a commercial for Dr Pepper that aired during this year's Super Bowl, and participated in Weezer's "Pork and Beans" music video (see above link).

I am glad, though, that Weezer honored Internet celebrities on their music video. Internet celebs may not have made their way to the top of the film, TV, or music charts, but they at least prove that anyone can offer decent entertainment. Although I don't enjoy the majority of the content on YouTube, I do admire the celebs' courage for showcasing themselves when they were finally allowed to do so, especially on the Internet for a massive audience.

A Clean Slate

"What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a “gated community” where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there." -John Markoff, Do We Need a New Internet?, New York Times, 14 Feb. 2009

The drive for a new Internet and a move into an online "gated community" reminds me of the post-WWII "white flight" from the urban areas and the inflated perception of urban areas as wastelands. And later, the suburban areas started becoming more dangerous as the decades progressed, and the residents built sprawling ex-urban neighborhood (i.e. Irvine) in order to continue escaping the crime. However, because people continued to run away from their cities' problems, they haven't dealt with the crime directly, and the urban areas have been neglected because of it.

I know I'm generalizing with the above example, but I don't think a clean slate for the Internet will necessarily solve our problems of viruses and hackers. A "new Internet" would not completely eradicate our problems because the problems will continue ruining the "old Internet", and that would be a very irresponsible decision that affects users who would not be able to access the "new Internet". Also, more problems will be invented later, and the clean slate won't last forever (law of entropy).

I honestly believe that we are as safe in the virtual world as in the actual world (as in, absolute security is never guaranteed). And sometimes we just have to take problems as they come. I think we'll come out better by taking back the Internets.

Daedalus Project: Guild Demographics

I noticed on the syllabus that we'll be reading Yee's "The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft" next week. From Nick Yee's website, I thought that these figures might prove useful for anyone looking into broader guild relations and demographics.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001635.php?page=1

What I found most interesting was the first chart on page three of the study, that supports the theory of MMOs maintaining real life social connections. Findings showed that a majority of players surveyed (59%) joined guilds where they knew someone in real life (defined as someone the player knew before joining the guild).

This is a startlingly statistic for me because, as an outsider, I was always given the impression that the "guild" sphere was built upon relationships formed entirely online. In the past, the idea of grouping "guild members" and "friends" in the same category was challenging for me to understand. I feel I should also note that this perspective is strengthened by myself falling victim to an absolutely terrifying incident of "web-rage" escaping into the real-world more than three years ago.

Regardless, I do feel that these figures have given me deeper insight into guild demographics, and I do intend on researching guilds further for my study.

Does the internet bolster cultural circularity?

Just an example of "viral" internet trends growing outside their birth-realm of the internet, sparking a bit "IRL" before returning to their very origins.

One wonders if the "inside joke" does more when providing insight into a given culture. Perhaps it is a light sketch of the developmental path of adaptive culture? No doubt the following examples exhibit the "shared" aspect of culture... and the power of societies to dictate their respective trends beginning with nothing more than effective word-of-mouth.

Of course, Leroy Jenkins
It begins with: A.
And finds popularity in its given mode of hilarity.
It travels to: B.
Though I must mention, the pop culture question goes unanswered.
And finishes where it began with: C. D. E.
As a result, Blizzard acknowledging the viral nature of the event has re-established the joke and the story of "Jenkins" continues.

And now, ...
Numa Numa
An obscure Moldovan pop song receives new interpretation through: A.
And the video finds popularity given the quirky humor.
Now, the viral song finds a new following through: B.
One can only speculate what will develop further, but the movement of this particular song to capture the current trends of American pop music is amazing just in itself.

Gender domination online

It's been said several times in lectures, supported by statistics, that the majority of gamers are male. Yet, according to this, the gender distribution of the American internet population is firmly skewed towards females. More women are currently online than men, and future projections show that the gap will only widen, and women will outnumber men online by over 8 million in 2012.

So, where are all these women?

Apparently, they are the driving force behind the success of blogs, journals, and other such social networks found online. OpenSocial and Facebook Stats from Rapleaf, posted in 2007, revealed that Facebook and MySpace users were 63% female, and other social networking sites such as Friendster and Plaxo were also significantly dominated by female users rather than male users. Livejournal is also female dominated, where 66.4% of users are female.

I've experienced the last first hand, as LJ is my virtual community of choice. I've had my LJ account for over five years now, and have several friends that I've never met physically, but trust and confide in as much as I do my friends who live near me. I'm a member of several communities, where I've seen the gender domination in action. The default assumption by many in these comms seems to be that all the users are female, except the ones who clearly state their male gender through their username by attaching "-boy" (or "-man" or "-guy") to the end.

Over the years, there have been several instances where users in a comm have, in the midst of a discussion or a debate, had to say specifically, "Um...I'm a guy." Almost inevitably, the response is something along the lines of, "Wha? You're a GUY?" And then another user will add, "I'm a guy, too." Then a few more will chime in with the admission that, yes, they too are males, to which they get something like this in reply: "I didn't know we had guys in here. Hey, guys!" Males on LJ are like the bunnies and squirrels on campus: they're there, and we know they're there, probably in more numbers than we suspect - but we don't register their existence until they come into our line of sight so we can marvel at their presence. (Or, you know, we run them over with our cars...but that was only the once and I felt horrible about it.)

So, yes, while guys may dominate virtual games like WoW and Ultima, us girls are out there, too, only in different places. Just something I thought I should throw out there. :)

How about, "Anthro"Centrism?

Quoting from the "Victorian Internet" epilogue in regards to the hype created from the birth of the Telegraph and the Internet,

"They are direct consequences of human nature, rather than technology." (212)

I read this line once, twice, and thrice and found that this statement the author proclaimed is deeply thought-provoking.

The world we live in right now is only shaped towards what we humans make it to be.
I.E. A "chair" is a "chair" because we have defined the object in such a way that we understand it to be, well, a chair.
We humans are biased to the symbols we arbitrarily choose to create meaning to an object; but to a further extent, we also create a sort of preference of how we use the object.
When we give preference to how and what objects should be use, what can you call this? Anthrocentrism?

This idea of Anthrocentrism is hard to imagine because, we (our species) are at the top of the food chain. There is no one on the same level with our species. Consider however, if they were another species who are similar to the human species that co-exist with us today..
How would they use the Internet had it been new technology to them? How would the world be?

What we create the world to be are the reflections of our own human nature.
Can we say we are anthropoligically biased then?
I wonder then...what other factors in the world are dead obvious to us if we weren't human.

~Ej Cruz (Student)