Online Communities - Spring 2007

I found topic of artificial intelligence in the Future of the Internet paper to be quite interesting.  I was very surprised at how many people (nearly 50 percent) believe that by 2020 we will have created an artificially intelligent system that we will then lose control of.  I wonder what the distribution would be for technical people versus random people.  A lot of movies that involve our technology advances in artifical intelligence seem to have us going to war with our creations. (I Robot, The Terminator, just to name a few).  People who are not in the area do not really understand how far we are from creating a truly intelligent being though.  We have very little idea of exactly how our own brains work, which makes it impossible to duplicate.  In my artifical intelligence class, I remember a quote from a rather prominent figure in the field being something like: If we could give a computer the reasoning power of a 5-year old, all of the world’s problems would be solved.  It is an interesting point, because given the processing speed and memory of computers, if they could actually ’think’, just imagine what could result.  What do you think?

Jessica Florendo

The Pew Internet Research  “The Future of the Internet,” was quite interesting for several reasons– it was nice to see what several of the “big dogs” theorized for 2020.  Several huge internet based companies, research networks, and academics were well represented in the findings.  On most of the 7 questions, participants agreed and disagreed in a 50/50 percent ratio.  The second question discussed had to do with English potentially displacing other languages by 2020.  Here only 42% agreed with the statement (still a very large sum).  I kept wondering throughout the article why this research did not gather any information on translating sites or software.  I figured by then, the world would incorporate comprehensive translation softwares to foster international communication without the need for learning or knowing a shared language.  Of course the internet will promote English as a lingua franca, but, at the same time, shouldn’t there be a simple and convenient way for someone who speaks Korean to speak to someone who only knows Portuguese?  I always assumed that people would be more stubborn to learn languages if they could instead build a software to do the work…

The Rheingold readings discussed wireless technologies in two respects: one being the social effects and implications, the other being the economic and business perspective. He talks of the ways wireless entertainment, dating, and trading will pervade our culture, namely beginning with early adoption by adolescents. he also praises the openness of the imode mobile telecommunications structure that europe and japan uses. amidst all the talk about CEO’s and business deals, Rheingold seems very excited about mobile technology in the web 2.0 sense that we are constantly talking about now.

In the ‘Future of the Internet II’ survey, i cannot help but notice that the survey (both the questions and the results) seemed pessimistic and skeptical of technological progress, its effects on social dynamics, and its further incorporation with our everyday lives. Although many of the results indicate a favor towards progress and new horizons, more often than not, it seemed as though the questions were hinting at a dark view of the future or an impending doom. regardless of who is saying this (the authors of the survey or the survey participants) this skeptical view is well established.

Obviously there are those, such as Rheingold, who are excited and there are those who are more cautious, as seen from the ‘Future of the Internet II’. Is this polarization as simple as young versus old? i have never met a neo-luddite under the age of 30, have you?

Putnam’s article seems pretty near-sighted in its hypothesis that technology such as TV and VCRs hurt social capital.  By 1995 it should have been apparent that the internet could be a powerful tool in promoting social capital. Besides, a lot of social capital can stem from the many communities based around TV shows (think of all the fansites for shows like Lost or Heroes), and even before the internet was so universal there was still water cooler conversation. People watch these shows together in groups. While idle channel flipping could certainly get in the way of social capital formation, that sort of impromptu leisure time would probably have been spent listening to the radio or reading in the time before TV, rather than actually doing something that could cause the formation of social capital.

I think Putnam is much more on-track with his theory about demographic transformations such as the transition from family-owned businesses to corporate franchises. If technology has a role in endangering the accumulation of social capital, it’s probably because of the quick, cheap, and easy value system it creates in lieu of real human contact. Putnam should be addressing this, rather than the difference between meeting online or in a bowling alley. The assessments for the future of the internet scenarios in Anderson’s article seem to reaffirm this: people’s belief that virtual reality will lead to addiction and that luddites will violently resist technology seems to indicate that people are conscious that something is being lost when people choose the convenient over the fulfilling.

I thought that Rheingold’s article made sense with some parts of the PEW Article. Both indicated an increasing trend in the globalization of communication. In particular though, I want to look at Rheingold’s article more in depth. One of the sections deals with why, unlike other parts of the world, the text messaging cultural trends have not swept over the US. Rheingold cites some various opinions that range from faulting wireless companies (bad advertising, bad pricing schemes, etc.) to attributing it to differing characteristics of the US v. Japan (US middle class citizens have more private space than the Japanese middle class, therefore there is less of a need for text messaging for teens). I found some merit with the former arguments about marking and pricing, and I was unsure what to think of the cultural/privacy arguments of the latter. Does anyone believe that cultural/privacy differences actually represent a substantial reason why the US has failed to be as influenced as, say, Japan?

See below quote:

Even urban Americans have immense amounts of private space that can accomodate their full social identities as well as their social networks. Thing that many middle class urband Americans have the most middle class urban Japanese don’t have include homes large enough to entertain friends and colleagues, private bedrooms for children, kitchens with storage space and appliances, more than one car, extra parking space at home, free parking for cars when out, cheap gas, toll free expressways, PC with Internet access (and space to put a PC in the home), more than one phone line with competitive phone rates (this just recently change in Japan). (Page numbers are cut off, but it is the right side of the 17th page in the pdf file.)

I was fascinated by the point raised in the Rheingold piece that public spaces are being redefined as wireless technology continues to permeate our lifestyles.  It seems like the line between public and private interactions are being blurred–as we are no longer being physically constricted by where we can have personal conversations, the taboos dictating what is and isn’t proper public behavior start to dissolve.  (Anyone who’s overheard a girl arguing loudly with her boyfriend on her cell phone knows what I mean.)  Conversely, though it doesn’t deal with technology specifically, the Putnam article conjures up in my mind the vision of a lonely person in a room basking in the light of their computer, blinds closed, shut off from the world.  I wonder if the public vs. private space issue cuts both ways…in other words, do you feel that the evolution of technology has made traditionally private places “public”?  Not literally public…but do you think that the advent of webcams, PDAs, etc. has broken the seal of privacy and intimacy traditionally associated with being “at home,” considering you can be reached nearly 24 hours a day?

Putnam’s article on the supposed decline of America’s social capital brings up many points without explaining clearly. When he talks about “bowling alone” he seems to imply that if you don’t bowl in a league, you are bowling solo. This is simply false, and I would think that most people don’t bowl in a league. His results then are not surprising, but they don’t mean anything either. Most people bowl casually with friends. I don’t know anybody who goes to a bowling ally by themselves. I did find it interesting the people have less trust in the government, yet do not participate in it as well. This is counter-intuitive. He also makes a large claim against technology, saying that it is “privatizing” leisure time. In fact, the opposite of this is probably true. Technology allows us to stay connected to people that in the past, we would never have been able to be connected with. Does anybody feel that technology has decreased communication?

The article about the future leads to some interesting speculation. I feel that it is inevitable that as technology progresses, there will become an international wireless network that allows almost everything to be connected. This would increase both communication and standards of living. However, it also has the possibility to make people lazy, and have less knowledge in their head. This isn’t to say that people will become stupid, but instead of learning facts, they will learn how to find facts. I think both things are good to know. I thought the comment about humans becoming robots’ pets preposterous and comical. The fact that he added on the comment about us becoming food subtracts from his credibility. Why do you think that expanding network communication was so important? In almost every futuristic novel, we see a “wired” world. This makes information and knowledge at our fingertips, which is always good.

Rheingold mentions that in America the texting culture is not as big as it is in Europe and Asia. From my experience living in Europe this is true. He says that the reason this happens is that Americans live their lives more privately than Asians and Europeans. They don’t have to use public transportation, their houses are generally big and overall their lives are not as “public”. This is supported by Putnam in Bowling Alone for the most part. He provides the counterargument however that common interest societies in America are on the rise. Those people don’t exactly know each other, but form a society based on their interests. It seems to me that this form of society is more appropriate for a smart mobile phone culture to grow than any other kind of society. In a society based on common interest wouldn’t it be more convinient to have the information you want when you want it, without necessarily knowing the person providing it? How come this hasn’t caught on in America?

I also disagree with Scenario 2. The internet has fueled people to continue to speak in different languages even in systems written in english. While the internet may mostly english, cultural groups will still find each other online as one cannot control the words that people write. Does is make sense to make the entire internet english? No, you’ll loose business.

I’ll also disagree with the majority of the people in Scenario 5. VR ’may’ allow for more productivity then the real world, but not as much as alot of current systems. The year 2020 is not that far away and avances in technology have only begun to making virual communication available. Can they really make a stable enviroment by 2020? No, in fact I’d like to think that more will get done without VR. VR requires all your focus, while non-VR system allow you to focus on many things. Plus not everyone will with down with VR.

Scenerio 7: Aren’t there people already doing acts fo terror on using the internet?

This week’s readings concentrated on different aspects of the relationship between technology and society in the future. In the “Smart Mobs” readings, H. Reingold’s discusses new technologies being introduced in society (cellphone, PCs, internet) and their current and future effects on society, primarily the social interaction between large organizations and individuals (i.e. producers versus consumers). Correspondingly, in “The Future of the Internet II,” J. Anderson and Lee Rainie discuss possible problems with technological advances such as uncontrollable AI (like Assimov’s “I Robot”), virtual realty addiction, terror attacks by technological protestors (Luddites and Refuseniks) and more. Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” diverges from the two previous themes and discusses civic engagement in American society (whether religious, political PTAs, labor unions or fraternal organizations) and posits that America’s democracy depends on a “strong and active civil society” (better schools, effective government and economy, and lower crime). Putnam then discusses the reasons behind the declining civil engagement in American society (women in labor force, “repotting”, technology altering leisure time), and its future harmful impact on American society, such as loosening family & neighborly bonds, declining social capital and civic trust, thus  threatening American democracy. At the conclusion of his paper, Putnam questions readers how to restore civic engagement and trust in order to reverse the harmful trends in American society. However, in class we have discussed how online communities have provided an alternate forum for people to interact and form bonds with social capital, and Putnam’s piece was published in 1995, before internet use and online communities became as prevalent as they are today. So my question is, do you think that these communities do provide an adequate alternate to former methods civic engagement and can reverse the negative impacts on American society that Putnam outlined? Would Putnam have to revise his assumptions and conclusions?

“…Since the Amish don’t have computers and probably don’t have computer viruses, it is based on the honor system. So, please delete all the files from your computer. Thank you for you cooperation.”

Today’s computer stories are a race between the virus-makers and the virus-protection industry. Every day, there’s some new patch being released for some program that makes us somehow vulnerable to something taking over our computer. Given that our security is such an important issue, I’m surprised that many people don’t seem to be particularly concerned about it in the future. (Security, in terms of money in the article, was ranked between third and fourth priority!) While I don’t think either side (virus or anti-virus) will ever gain clear dominance, it’s still a possibility. When thinking about a network that encompasses all parts of life, the idea of some user being able to access everything without anyone’s knowledge is frightening. If any of you have read Ender’s Game (or the entire series), I keep thinking to Jane, the sentient computer being that helps Ender create his own rules by taking advantage of everything on the “net.”

The more connected we are, the more at risk we are. The Reinheart article postulated that the texting phenomenon (which actually intrigues me quite a bit) is a way for teens to gain more privacy. Maybe it’s because I’m not quite able to text without looking at my screen yet, but I don’t see how that can be the case. If anything, text messages are less secure because the data in them often remains on the phone for a significant amount of time. I know that if my parents were to learn how to use text messages and go through my phone, I would not like the results. They can’t monitor my phone conversations, but texts are more concrete, and, like IM, can be used as leverage in arguments - both with parents and peers.

It seems to me that the US is just now joining the texting trend that’s taking over the world. In Asia, texting is omnipresent, and here, we keep hearing about kids running up $1000+ bills for their parents because the feature is so addictive. I ask then, do you think that texting is something that will plateau, or do you think that with new features that can link it to IM and other technology, it will reach the point of addiction for many people? (I wonder if current Blackberry users, often glued to their phones, are a frightening look at our futures…)

According to Robert Putnam, social capital in the U.S. is eroding in several different forms: at all educational levels, group memberships, civic associations, etc. Putnam places “family” at the top of the social capital pyramid, with “neighborliness” coming in as the next most fundamental form; he believes that neighborliness is eroding at a rapid pace because there is a common lack of trust among members in American society. Is there really a lack of trust, though? Or are people simply too busy to network outside of their homes? Putnam talks about 4 reasons for the general erosion of social capital, which I think would better explain a lack of trust between neighbors. What do you think? Also, while he offers several suggestions- are there any you believe would help eliminate the erosion of social capital? In regards to Rheingold– it was a good, quick read… but not very informative– reminded me of Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat. This past weekend a friend and I joked about how “the internet is the future”, as Rheingold claims in his chapters. As college students, reliable technology fits the demands of our lifestyles… it’s funny how close it’s become to being the other way around.

The ‘Bowling Alone’ article speaks a lot about trends of a Declining Social Capital in America. Putnam states that this may be, in part, due to technological changes within the typical household. The other reading about Smart Mobs was also very intriguing. The comments about recognizing the future I felt were important since we see so many technologies come and go, so it’s hard to know what will be the next big thing and what will flop.

When discussing the future, we must consider that the concept of moblogs and online communities have already begun to transcend the social realm. A recent CNN article points out the phenomenon of politics moving online.

“Mitt Romney was the first potential Republican Presidential candidate to launch a Facebook profile; Democrat John Edwards was the first to set up shop in virtual world Second Life; and Hillary Clinton launched her Presidential campaign via her Web site. All of the major candidates for the 2008 American Presidential election have support on Facebook and profiles on MySpace.”

Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/05/01/election.facebook/

Could it be that the most important decisions we make could be completely learned, researched, discussed, and executed online? Are we moving toward a society that will choose our next president based on the number of friends they have on MySpace or the number of people who joined their “A Million Strong for …” group? Will those people who don’t follow the trends be left behind and unaccounted for?

Interesting topic: the future.

Many interesting points in the different readings. First the development of the internet is a subject in one of the CS classes (Internet Architecture). Building a new architecture which will revolutionize the web is one of nowadays questions in order to deal with both security and new features. Security is a big aspect of this new weave as actually we don’t have the means to deal with all the security problems such as spam for instance. Second interesting point is the scenario: Some Luddites/Refuseniks will commit terror acts. This is really incredible to see that 58% of the surveyed people feel that the technology is threatening to the point that terror act will come in the daylight. Providing those people some assurace should therefore be a prioritary point of internet arhitecture research. Finally, third, the point of view that technological advances is related to a decline in participation and membership in groups shows another aspect of this class. I think we all agree that the internet is a formidable tool for us to build communities. Seeing examples where this has led to a fragmentation of the community is somewhat strange.

As for my question, I would ask you guys what you think of the future that the technology will bring us to. Do you think that it will lead to a better connected world with ultimately a good social effect in general (more liberty, better social capital, involved communities…)? Or the opposite (according to the view point that face to face communication is way better than any other medium)?

As always, the future is as it should be: exciting. We have the opportunity to make our future so let’s try to make it good.

Robert Putnam’s article comments on the shift in civic engagement. He points out the decreasing trend in joining political groups or groups like fraternities. He uses the example of bowling to illustrate that people are becoming more self involved. Bowling teams have decreased, while there is an increase in solo bowlers. This illustrates a vanishing social capital. He also pointed out that there has been an increase in members joining alcoholic anonymous. This shows that people have become more self involved in helping themselves than society as a whole. However, in connection to the internet trend, people are blogging and keeping sites updated a lot more. Has communication and civic engagement gone online? People join many groups online; has their social identity transferred to a virtual reality?

Putnam’s Bowling Alone article was written basically as the Internet was just started to flourish. His main point is that people are declining their involvement in social organizations. This is shown by more people bowling, but fewer bowling in organized leagues. He then targets the Internet as “individualizing” our free time.

My first question is is this really relevant anymore? Each week in this course, we’ve gone over different types of communities that focus on interacting with others. Admittedly, this isn’t the same as being in a real life group environment, but instead of watching TV, we can be posting on Facebook walls, uploading pictures to share, and posting/responding on forums for thousands to read. Though some forums are just for play, many are a great example of social interaction that really can develop civic discussions.

The Pew Internet article discusses more futuristic possibilities for the Internet. The virtual worlds relate most to the Bowling Alone article in that these worlds arguably build social interaction, but on the other hand, can become so embodying that people don’t even have real lives, just an addiction.

Another interesting Pew point is the transparency vs. privacy issue. The idea of giving up privacy for benefits (Patriot Act style) has come up just this week in a Google issue.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/technology/article2589388.ece

This article talks about Google’s plans to use a huge amount of data from its users to make it extremely personal to the point that it will know what products or services people are interested in, just based on Google activities.

Personally, I think I would enjoy this service. If Google knows that I like shows like 24 and a new similar show is coming out next week, I’d be interested in reading about it. If Google knows that I get colds every few months and a new medicine is coming out, I’d be interested in checking it out. As long as the data was guaranteed not to be sold or released outside of Google, that could be awesome. It should also be clear which suggestions are paid for by advertisers and which are legitimately the most releveant.

Would you be interested in letting Google track all of your activity if they could provide great suggestions for you?

Rheingold’s Smart Mobs paints a picture of a future in which technology has become embedded in previously mundane parts of our lives, allowing for unprecedented communication across a wireless World Wide Web. Although Rheingold himself is quick to point out that the mobs of the past have not always harbored the best of intentions, I’m wondering whether these future smart mobs will be used toward more noble ends. With all the research being done on the intelligence of collectives (although American Idol seems at times to stand in stark opposition to this phenomenon), to what extent will the future capitalize on the opinions of the many?

Both the Putnam article and the article on the future of the internet present ways in which technology is affecting society. Putnam’s mention of the tv “individuizing” and “privatizing” our use of leisure time clearly applies to the Internet. The Future of the Internet article looks at the potential impacts of the internet in the future. Both present the technology/the internet as having serious, negative impacts on society, in a sense far beyond control.

Anderson et al present a scenario is which Luddites or Refuseniks do not progress with our technologically-enhanced society. Some do so for their own peace of mind while other extremists commit acts of terror to rebel against technology. Either way, they society is impacted by technology to such an extent that a portion of the population is completely alienated. We already have a generation of older people (many of our grandparents) who do not choose to or know how to work with the technology that we are so comfortable with. Will we come to a point where those people can no longer function properly in the world? Where you cannot complete the simplest tasks without an internet connection? We already see things moving to the online sector to a great extent (eg., if you buy plane tickets on the phone instead of online you are charged an additional fee). Will that pattern continue or a point where there is no choice between doing things the old-fashioned way (eg., mailing a letter in a mail box) or will we be able to maintain a balance for those who choose not to become utterly dependent on technology?

In Bowling alone, he seems to be making a statement that it is people that have stopped being ‘civic.’ He brings the case of voting and how “tens of millions of Americans had forsaken their parents’ habitual readiness to engage in the simplest act of citizenship.” I think that he puts the blame on citizens, but personally I feel that part of the blame can also be put on the government. I don’t think people are just ‘too busy’ or have no ‘civic’ feelings, but the cause has to be rooted somewhere else. Personally, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, nothing will change. Perhaps if the government decided to change and listen to voters (and non-voters), people would build back trust in the government. Obviously there seems to be a distrust in the government for some reason and that has to be addressed instead of putting blame on people.

My question is in regards to Facebook, Myspace, and other OCs being group memberships. There are some people that will spend their Saturday afternoons planning to meet with their friends on World Of Warcraft to complete some mission. They obviously feel part of that community just as a bowler would feel like a part of his team.

Do you think that this is necessarily ‘bad?’ We have seen that OCs can fulfill some part of the users lives. But take this scenario for example. If I had breast cancer, would it be more beneficial to go to an online community for support or take part in a face-to-face support group and how do you think this will change in the future? Do you think that eventually we will get the same experiences from both mediums of communication?