read three articles and respond with three questions for each.
Ethics of Digital Direct Action - Gabriella Coleman September 2011
I felt like this article was one of the first articles we have read that really sparked a contemporary view on the ways in which technology affects our world in a very informative manner.
- Does anyone else in the class know much about the idea, culture and methods of a DDoS?
- Do the FBI fear another Egypt?
- Does the FBI's lack of differentiation between hacking and DDoSing reflect their lack of progressive growth with the times?
Our Weirdness is Free - Gabriella Coleman May 2012
- Are people (her audience), particularly the ones in this class, aware of the extent of the stigma associated with 4chan? I think, at least for me, it really taints my view on this group.
- What do they mean by trolling the Church of Scientology? What did this entail?
- Do you think the group "Anonymous" was really egged on into existence by those participants of 4chan who have a very strong tendency towards mischief?
Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar - Martin Libicki 2009
- It is pretty striking how much we rely on the infrastructure of the internet and how much we (literally America as a collective) entrust to the idea that "no one has cracked our defenses yet". (Sorry not a question)
- Going off of the above, doesn't this just emphasize the separation between those who control technology and those who don't?
- And now going off of the above that is going off of the above, doesn't it seem as if those able to wage war of this kind excludes the already less fortunate? Its as if they will soon not even belong to the same race - how terrifying!
respond with answers to Patrick Vargas's questions.
From O’Regan, G., Chapter 6 - The Internet Revolution. In A Brief History of Computing.
Will there ever be another Dot Com Crash like before with another piece of technology? It seems people knew too little about the internet and attacked it with practices that aren't appropriate for the technology.
I think it is something that just comes with the cycling of technology. I think that the shortcuts that a technology creates will inevitably catch up to its actual development and hit a kind of plateau. That seems to be the general trend.
From Wiener, N., 1954. Cybernetics in History. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Why does the author believe "that society can only be understood through a study of the messages and the communication facilities which belong to it"? Are there no other facilities?
I had this same basic question when I read this. That statement seems to color the article a bit naive. I would argue that in the study of sociology, simply disregarding all the of the many layers of interaction that exist in the social world is probably pretty taboo. Once I began to notice this very distinct oversight, it made me question the author for the rest of the piece. I understand that the analysis of all the complexity of human beings is obviously much to expansive, however he needed to provide an explanation of the why he chose to put all the focus on interpersonal communication.
From Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D., 1967. Some Tentative Axioms of Communication. In Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
What would the author think of communication now a days with the use of text messaging, multimedia messaging, email, and social media?
I think she would acknowledge the detriment that most of these forms of limited communication cause. The need to distill and condense is only going to decrease understanding and shorten patience.
read three articles and respond with three questions for each.
- Are computer's now inherently corrupt due to there association with weaponry?
- Or are computers simply machines developed with one basal function that has now expanded and evolved to something with seemingly endless possibilities and has lost any direct corruption from the early influences?
- Do you believe the computer would have been established without the military aspect sooner or later?
- Was everyone a little baffled with the way so much of our lives has been modeled off of military proceedures?
- And don't you find it interesting that the fundamental reasoning into the necessity of a military stems from fear, it seems only too natural for humans to allow fear to dictate their every functioning, always precautionary.
- Although not a question, I think it is totally worth it to mention that in my engineering experience I have come across many people (incidentally mostly men) who have come back to school as it is being funded by their military career.
- Did the origin of ARPANET as a tool primarily used in academia and the military taint the extension of the World Wide Web?
- In what ways did Lee's background predispose him to invent the World Wide Web?
- I wonder if their is a correlation between the development of credit cards and the commercialization of the Web into a buyer's market?
respond with answers to three of Sammie Elvove's questions.
From Resisting Technology: Regaining a personal ecology - Ravi Agarwal 2003
1.) How has technology negatively impacted people? Why do we continue to use technology that puts certain groups at risk or at a lower level of living?
In my opinion, one of the worst aspects of technological advancement is the idea that the society has now become entirely dependent on it. What this does is drive a large gap between the classes. It becomes "those who have the money to endure our technologically oriented society", and "those who do not". In more rural places less touched by the age of the computer, the poor may still build a living as their basic skills are likely the same as the wealthier. Whereas in places like America, basic skills are heavily made up of proficiencies with various aspects of technology. But if the less privileged population has no access to this technology in the first places, they will not be likely to have the same chances in advancing their economic status and hereby promoting elitism. But regardless I would argue to a certain point human beings are elitist by nature. We make thoughts through connection and comparison so it seems only natural to be driven to make ourselves the better of the two, we are inherently competitive.
From The Political Power of Social Media - Clay Shirky 2004
1.) I see how social media has amazing benefits of connecting us to one another, but isn't it also bringing us further apart? Are text messages and emails replacing everyday conversations? If so, this is big concern socially since everything we do in life relies on the ability to communicate with others successfully
I would definitely agree that our obsession with social media is ultimately bringing us further apart. I think that the brevity of the texting and emailing conversations that dominates our day to day lives is the most dangerous part. Our attention spans and by extension, patience, has been so shortened by this habitual cultural that I think we are hesitant to place the same level of care and devotion to our personal pursuits and relationships both private and public. This in turn changes our perspective entirely as the emphasis on depth and complexity is switched to speed and perpetual motion.
2.) Is it fair that social media has such an impact on politics? Shouldn't politics be about cold, hard facts instead of who has a better Twitter manager or more creative internet ads?
I am in complete agreement with these arguments. It is something that I actually have really been putting a lot of thought into during this election. I think that four years ago I was not as immersed in the real world as I believe I am now through the college experience and didn't have much exposure to the political world as I do now. But now as my participation has grown, I have been stricken by how much Obama has relied on these networks that social media has built. It seems as if this may be a negative thing. People should be basing their decision on researched fact and speculation and not on one-liners from a poster or internet ad. Politics are incredibly complicated and tough to ever really grasp, how could any of that information be portrayed accurately through assorted and strategically placed slogans.
read two articles and respond with three questions for each.
Cybernetics in History - Norbert Weiner 1954
- From my opinion, the grouping of communication and control into one "classing" implies a large oversight in what is included in a simple act of communication (body language, shared history, lasting/first impressions). Did he consider these aspects before making the bold statement of "When I control the actions of another person, I communicate a message to him"?
- Is he aware that he began the previously quoted section in a gender impartial way by using "person" and finished off with a declaration that that person must be a him? I find it interesting when this is not edited out before publication, you find it everywhere.
- Fairly early on, he makes the statement "To me, personally, the fact that the signal in its intermediate stages has gone through a machine rather than through a person is irrelevant and does not in any case greatly change my relation through the signal." This really struck me as a very bold statement that continues his theme of an extremely literal definition of the methods of society. Would he still feel the same way if the signal happened to be some great declaration of love? There is an inherent difference in the fact that we know the human will have a conscious retrieval while the machine will have an impartial encoding. To me this is a very stark difference.
Some Tentative Axioms of Communication - Watzlawick, Beavin, Jackson 1967
- Was this piece written with a differing view of schizophrenia than what is commonly accepted now? As far as I know and as far as those with schizophrenia whom I know, the disorder simply eliminates a persons consistent ability to communicate effectively. The disorder does not eliminate a schizophrenics participation in the realm of communication as a human being.
- When he says, " it seems that the more spontaneous and 'healthy' a relationship, the more the relationship aspect of communication recedes into the background" why does he choose to group spontaneous with healthy as being of one type?
- Who was the intended audience of this piece?
read three articles and respond with three questions for each.
- What would be this author's definition of technology?
- Is this work meant to persuade, motivate or tear down?
- Would the author argue that technology has come to exist for technology's sake, to the detriment of the people for whom that technology was procured?
- Does the reference to "Selves and Others" stem from another dialogue on this subject?
- In the seventh paragraph, are we being told that through the personal pursuit of intentional isolation, the spirit triumphs?
- Is it fair to separate the effect your physical presence can have on your spirit?
- Would you suspect that soon, our social media sites will begin to be bombarded with propaganda type nonsense as it is the "final frontier" so to speak?
- Is the conservative dilemma focusing on the idea that we are not meant to be heard?
- Does anyone else love the part regarding the U.S. plans as needing to "increase its support for local public speech and assembly" as this is a great tone to set for the future? We need to utilize the technology in a very conscious manner in order to enact a change for the better.
