Assignment 13: Government 2.0

To address the question in Slashdot, “how do you think government (either in the United States or elsewhere) can best utilize technology to engage the public and make government more transparent and accessible?” I find that this is a difficult question to answer. I do view the government as some inaccessible object but I know it will always affect us directly. Obama posting his weekly addresses on YouTube is a great idea to come in contact with more people and it makes governmental information more available for the people. Also the information presented has not been embellished by the media so people are able to form their own honest opinions on Obama’s issues and topics this way. I think it’s great that he wants to utilize the internet for his broadcasts because he is giving the impression that he cares and he is just one of us. I also think that it is a step in the right direction that he wants to utilize the other technological resources available. The internet is a huge resourceful tool and if the government would use it more I think it would engage the public to view our government as accessible and transparent. If the government would get more involved with the technology I think the people of this country would become more involved with the government because a connection could be formed between them.
A way to make the government more accessible and transparent would be have people comment on his addresses (it does not necessarily have to be in blog form it could be done in polls an so on). If the government would look over the comments being made, they could gage people’s opinions better. During the election, weekly polls and new information kept being updated and it was easy to find out what was happening with the government and become involved. If the government could continue to be as involved as they were during the election they could get more citizens involved. I think the government has temporarily forgotten that the opinions of the US citizens should be looked at and measured instead of just their own. I think that people get really frustrated with the government because their opinions and views simply get tossed aside most of the time. Take the bailout for instance (the first one). They took poll and most Americans were against the bailout; mainly because the companies will just continue what they are doing and come back for more…they wont fix anything…its almost as if they have to fail in order to rebuild a better company. The government went ahead with the bailout and what have the companies done so far? Ask for more money. Because people are frustrated with the government I think they may feel a bit defeated and therefore they don’t involve themselves because voices are not being heard. If the government used the internet as a form of communication that is a two way street instead of one, I think they would get farther ahead. Also if technology is getting used for the government higher standards and rules may be imposed on the technology companies so they will produce a better, long lasting product.
In any way I really hope this country has what it takes to fix things. The fact that Obama wants to get involved is a good sign and hopefully he can change some things for the better. I hope he utilizes technologies made available to him to help him along the way because I think the road is going to be really rocky. If the government becomes more involved with its citizens, it may smooth things over a little.

Assignment 12: Network Neutrality

There are many definitions of network neutrality, and it is almost hard to pinpoint what the true definition actually is. However, it is almost better to make up your own definition for it just as long as you understand the concept of it. I defined network neutrality as: A network that is free of restrictions and that allows the express of all forms of communication. I also found this video on Youtube very helpful in explaining network neutrality. The current debate on network neutrality is whether or not restrictions on internet networks should be enabled. There are two sides to every story. To enable restrictions on network neutrality would mean that information provided by the internet may be censored. An example would be like censoring pornography. Your internet provider would be in charge of all the restrictions. Another way your internet service provider may enable restrictions is to direct internet “traffic flow” and to block certain content like spam or viruses. On the flip side of things, the internet service providers may abuse the restrictions and according to the Jones article from Information Newsweek, “without some type of anti-discrimination law or standards, cable and telecommunications companies could control users' access by blocking content from competitors, favoring certain applications, charging higher rates to deliver information into people's homes and offices and failing to inform people of their capacity” (Jones, 2007).
Many interests are at steak here, the peoples for one, the government for another and the internet service providers. Many people feel that certain rights and privileges would be taken away if network neutrality were taken away. The government would have the responsibility of regulating it if restrictions were placed, and the internet service providers I believe would abuse the privileges if restrictions were placed and they were in charge. First of all the internet service providers are a business first and foremost and they are here to make money. If they are getting paid to direct internet flow to a certain search engine, it is in their best interest to take the money that say, Google is offering. This would greatly dissatisfy the internet users because they don’t want to be subjected to those kinds of restrictions; its unfair and it may make less people use the internet or make others switch their internet service providers. However the problem is that switching service providers is not a way to solve this. Also I believe that people would just find a way around the internet restrictions like they do now. If laws or standards are enabled and are influenced by the government this again limits people’s privileges on the internet. The government may want to collect some sort or revenue along with the service providers.
I feel very torn about this debate because I think both arguments present good points. However if I had to choose one I would go with not emplacing restrictions on network neutrality. I agree with the article above, serious precautions would have to be made in order to place restrictions on the internet. I don’t feel that the companies would be responsible to emplace the restrictions themselves and I feel the same about the government as well and there is no saying that the government would strike a deal with the providers as well to taking in any more income if the providers require more money. Obviously I feel that many things should be censored on the internet like child pornography and so on but I think at this stage of the game the ball is already rolling and its hard to stop it once people have already experience something they like, which is network neutrality. Also I feel that gate keeping is not the way to go with the internet because it is not successful in the media why would it be successful with the internet?

References:

Jones, K.C. Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. InformationNewsweek. 16 Mar.2007. Retrieved from: < http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557 >.

Youtube. Save the internet! 8 Dec. 2006. Retrieved from: .

Assignment 11: Virtual Worlds

I am not familiar with virtual games online so it came as quite a shock to me what is exactly entailed in these games. It’s an interesting concept being able to play different characters like in World of Warcraft and you have different tasks/goals that must be accomplished and gold to earn or as in Second Life, create a life the way you really want it that can possess similar qualities to “real life.” Neither of these two things really interest me and finding out that people spend 8 hours a day doing these things sounds pretty ridiculous. I think that some people lose the relationships and connections that they once had if they play in these virtual worlds. In the assigned reading titled: The Unreal Estate Boom one man lost his wife and child to these virtual worlds. It makes me conclude that people have lost where the drawn line is from life to virtual and they are not able to decipher the two. I for one go by the expression, “If I can see it and touch it then its real,” and in these virtual worlds, nothing is felt or can be touched.
I think that there are huge issues with putting real money into virtual worlds. When one spends money you generally get a materialistic object back and that is not the case in these virtual worlds. Wikipedia defines Second Life as “Second Life Viewer enables its users, called "Residents", to interact with each other through motional avatars, providing an advanced level of a social network service combined with general aspects of a metaverse. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade items (virtual property) and services with one another”(Wikipedia, 2008). Second Life allows a person to freely be a person that they want to be and in that case it may be worth it to use real money because they have a problem interacting socially in real life. Then again, many people may need to feel that this virtual game needs to be connected to their real life because they want to believe that it is real (again I think they have lost the defining line between real life and virtual). World of Warcraft on the other had doesn’t encourage the exchange of virtual reality “property” and “goods” for real money. World of Warcraft is more along the lines of fantasy terms with tasks and levels that need to be passed and accomplished. According to Newsweek, what makes World of Warcraft so popular is its social dynamics; it is an alternate world with a “medieval Matrix” twist (Levy, 2008). This is more of a game to me rather than Second Life because I find that it can be less easier to loose the definition of real life to virtual.
Comparing the open system (Second Life) to the closed system (World of Warcraft) I find it odd that people want to spend money on this that they cant physically touch. I can see why World of Warcraft doesn’t condone the spending of real money on its goods because certain lawsuits can arise and I don’t think any rules or regulations on this sort of thing have been addressed. This is why I think real life and virtual needs to be kept separate because people have the ability to get to involved and if they try to apply virtual things in real life it probably won’t add up correctly the way they think it should.

References:

Second Life. 2008. Retrieved November 7, 2008 from STS Wiki: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life>.

Levy, Steven. World of Warcraft: Is it a Game?. 2008. Retrieved from MSNBC.com: < tab_id="_2_1&url="%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_61661_1%26url%3d">.