Extra Credit: The Good. The Bad. The Ugly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2488412/Best-friends-born-arm-finally-meet-person-years-talking-Skype.html

            The Good: The Internet has become a bottomless pool of information, as well as a modem for human connection. While it can also breed alienation, it is also a way for others to feel more comfortable communicating with people that they otherwise wouldn’t. It is a way for people to cross oceans without leaving their own living rooms, and therefore find people that share the same favorite color, the same connection to their family, perhaps they share the same heartache. Sarah and Paige’s story was made possible because of the Internet. Because communication media such as Skype exist, two girls who understand each other’s pain and daily struggles more than anyone else they’d ever met were able to find each other, bond with each other, teach each other, become sisters with one another, all from hundreds of miles away. Their story is one that is possible for so many that feel ostracized, that are otherwise unable to communicate their feelings, or find people to connect with that understand them. Social connection and mass collaboration in order to establish genuine connections with others, I believe is an example of the world of “good” that the Internet is capable of.

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep00/piper.htm

            The Bad: With such vast accessibility, the Internet is virtually modifiable by any human source. This is a great way to share and expand upon ideas, but with so many people posting so many things on the Internet, we face the problem of inaccuracy and misinformation. This article, the story of a naïve eighth grader misinformed by a hate site, (unbenounced to him) of a false history of Martin Luther King’s life and accomplishments. His paper, by correlation slandered the very name of one of our nation’s finest heroes. Hate sites in general, are an aspect of the truly ugly side of the web. However, with the ability to make your web page seem legitimate, we are at risk of dangerously misinforming our youth. Counterfeit websites and fictitious sites put us all at the risk of ignorance, and it is up to us to think critically about what is legitimate and what is a sham.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/23692710/2013/10/15/students-face-felony-stalking-charges-after-girl-takes-own-life

            The Ugly: The Internet allows for complete anonymity, a way to hide behind a computer screen and a false identity without facing consequence for anything said or done to others in this virtual world. This world unfortunately is one that we have become more and more present in. It’s a permanent world that we can’t escape. The story of Rebecca to me truly exhibits the negative effects of online bullying and the toll it can take on so many of us. For someone so young to have taken her own life due to the cruelty of two others so young really exhibits to me that those two girls did not realize the volume of what they were doing because they did not have to see her face. It is so easy to type such hateful things without actually having to say them out loud, watching that girl cry, and feeling the tinge of guilt. The Internet makes bullying more of a game. It is easier to convince yourself that the feelings of the person on the other side of that screen do not exist, because you can’t see them.

Assignment 4: Thoughts on Network Neutrality

     In the realm of our freedoms I would have to say that the beneficial reasons for net neutrality outweigh the detrimental consequences, if there exists any detriment at all. The arguments for net neutrality, essentially, are that it encourages innovation, promotes free speech, as well as protects consumer choices. The petition to clearly define these rights as law has been in much dispute over the years, critics of net neutrality argue that the government has no right to interfere with how online businesses distribute their services to their consumers. Online companies says that it is an issue of free-enterprise, that as individual businesses, these network providers have the right to decide how they are going to charge their consumers.
     Net neutrality has most recently been in the news in regards to Netflix. Because their services are intertwined within the web of competition, particularly with cable companies, cable companies, such as verizon and comcast, exerted the right to diminish the quality and speed in which netflix streams their media. This, of course, was unless Netflix compromised, in "peering" with comcast, paying to keep the quality of their service, reaching a deal with various cable providers. Instead of plummeting, the stock for Netflix unexpectedly skyrocketed. This is where the loophole lays. While all companies are expected to provide consumers with equal access to the internet, there is no mention against this so called "peering" of network and cable providers.
     The issue of net neutrality is enveloped in concerns of freedom of speech because it enables companies to monitor consumer access to certain sites, and thus consumer input. Many European nations have completely given up on net neutrality and adopted the opposite ideal. Without open internet, companies could have the right to inhibit our access to certain publications, a form of censorship that seems rather archaic in the context of modern American society.
     The recent news about net neutrality affects me (the average consumer), in the aspect that I could be expected to pay for a service that has always been available to me free of charge. Service providers would have the right to play favorites, thus limiting my access (or slowing the search process) to certain mediums that serve as a source of competition, or giving higher priority to a consumer who is able to afford paying more than me for a "more ideal" service experience. Essentially, it all comes down to my time and money, two things that the average citizen values a great deal.
     My opinion on the whole ordeal is that, in America, we are given a great deal of freedoms. And yes, perhaps we are given too many, perhaps we take much of them for granted. However, I do not believe in going backwards. In appealing the idea of internet equality, we are essentially taking away a basic freedom to not only entertaining content, but also information, that we, as American citizens have always had the right to. The competition between service providers seems as if it could eventually turn into a corrupt and flawed system of "choosing the lesser of two evils" on behalf of the consumer. The expense of the internet could stop many from accessing it altogether, the internet, an entity, I now believe, that many of us would simply not be able to live without. I pity those in other countries who are censored by their governments, and those who fall victim to the power of major corporations. The idea of redacting the open internet threatens the very idea of democracy.

1. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/10/why-the-future-of-online-speech-depends-on-net-neutrality302/
     ........This article talks about the censorship of the internet in other countries and the idea of this being, a significant step backward in terms of basic human freedoms. It ties in quite nicely with how a world without the internet equality impedes on freedom of speech. It also provides firsthand perspectives on the embedded video which I thought to be very intriguing and valid.

2. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2014/01/net-neutrality-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-a-digital-age/
     .........This article, similar to the above article has everything to do with the first amendment. While issues on net neutrality govern freedom of speech, they also govern freedom of the press. PBS further narrated a perspective on the FCC's decisions. It articulates that local news sites can be monitored for content in the same way as media sites, limiting the stories that appear (perhaps even censoring them), leaving the public misinformed. The power to change entertainment is one thing, but going as far to censor news stations, borders on dictatorship.

Viral Rape

 The issue of publicizing rape, is far more difficult for me to formulate an opinion on. Yes, I do understand that it makes it easier to identify the perpetrator. It also better illustrates the gruesome, grotesque reality of rape, and perhaps the twisted frequency in which it occurs. However, we see cases like Audrie Pott, where the video led to ridicule as opposed to sympathy. The video was the catalyst for her humiliation which became the catalyst for her tragic death. Rape is a very personal and private thing. I believe if the victim is willing to share their experience, even in so publicly a way, then so be it. However, I don't think such media should necessarily be encouraged.

I Have Nothing to Hide (Assignment 3, Part B)

     In response to those who do not have incriminating information or photographic representation on social media, or rather are not even at all involved with social media, there are other ways to electronically violate your privacy that can be detrimental. For instance, many smart phones are now equipped with location data. Although, it is supposed to be anonymous, there are still many ways around the system. The fact that your exact location can be made available to any willing stranger at any moment in time is unsettling to say the least. And one may say they have nothing to hide, but I know some things we are all trying to hide, our credit card numbers, our social security numbers, our identities that are supposed to be kept our own, not shared. With banking made easy, we can check our bank status, make transfers, and even make deposits in the palm of our hands, without ever having to leave the comfort of our homes. However, everything that glitters isn't necessarily gold. With your routing number, account number, and credit card number floating out there in cyber space, it is all the more possible that someone else could gain access to it. These are the things you want to hide, and the changing world makes it more and more impossible to do so.
   

The Rise of The Human Robot

I have been thinking a lot lately about the rise of machines. With computerized surgeries and artificial intelligence becoming more and more prominent, I can't help but wonder, if the idea of the "singularity", will ever truly come to volition. The singularity, being the embedding of computerized knowledge into the human brain, essentially binding man with machine. But does this make us human? Our any of our thoughts our own anymore? Can a single virus wipe out the population? Can this be used against us? In a society where we all have the same advantages, there is no hierarchy, and thus, no balance. Such rantings may seem like petty paranoia, However we are already bound to machine. A symbiotic relationship already exists. It's our choice to decide how far we want to take it.