Week 12

Between the mid-1990’s and the release of the iPad, technology saw a dramatic increase in terms of the web and what it has to offer. Between these two different time periods we have seen the introduction of web 2.0 and the new features that it introduced. We have also witnessed the emergence of video technology and the ever growing presence of videos on the internet.

If the Ipad was released in the 1990’s I think there would still be a small audience for the product, however, the product would not be nearly as popular as it is today. In fact, I believe that only the early adopters would have used the technology and that a new more advanced form of the Ipad would exist today through means of collaboration and globalization from an ever increasing social world.

I think without the early adopters that the Ipad would now have been so successful. The early adopters really play a huge role in bringing awareness to a product that makes the rest of the public more aware. With an increase in the production of video and other web 2.0 features, I think that the Ipad creates a platform that aids in the production of creativity. Moore’s Law states that technology advances approx. every 18 months as the price decreases. I think that the success of the Ipad is also due to people using the Ipad to get used to the new technology so that they are not lost when new technology is created.

The Tablet newspaper is the medium. The newspaper already existed as a message, and the new way to view the message comes in the form of a new medium. I think that when someone tries to predict the future that they may limit the potential of someone’s creativity. If they read a prediction and a small advancement is all that is expected, then they may not try as hard as they would have in the first place.

Means, motives, and oppertunities

     This week the author discussed cognitive surplus in terms of means, motives, and opportunities. In this post I will explain the meaning of each term and try to give an example from the readings. First, the author discusses the term means. Means are why we do the things that we do. An example from the reading would be the protesting from the Korean public. The media informed the public of the contaminated beef so that the public would have a reason not to buy the beef. Motives are what push us to act. The protest of American beef occurred because the media over sensualized the issue in the first place. Opportunities are the choices that we are able to choose from. There are hundreds of different news agencies trying to get across to an audience a very similar message. The opportunity is that you have the choice to choose where your information comes from based on personal preferences. Different news agencies will provide different perspectives on the same topic giving the public the opportunity to choose which view point they like better.  

     The terms build off one another because one tells you why to be interested in a topic, one tells you how to act, and the other informs you of your choices when it comes to consuming media. In today’s media landscape I think that the opportunities are there but not used by the consumers of media. Instead of taking the information that is presented and interpreting it and forming their own opinion, they take the information at face value and just believe it for how it was presented.

Is the world flat?

Recently we watched two different Ted Talks in class; one by Thomas Friedman and the other by Pankaj Ghemawat. Friedman argues that the world is flat. What he meant by this is that geography has been over come by all of the technological advancements that we have achieved. He argues that geographic boundaries are no longer a factor when it comes to communicating or interacting with people that live all the way across the ocean from us. The problem is that Friedman’s statements are general and are not that well backed up with examples. I think that Friedman is onboard the ship that overestimates globalization as a whole. I agree that the potential for a “flat world” is there, but I’m not sure if I am sold on the idea that enough people are communicating across boarders to make that statement.

On the other hand we have Pankaj Ghemawat who argues that the world really is not flat. What Ghemawat means by this statement is that not a lot of people are taking advantage of this technology and are communicating across large distances. He argues that many people over estimate globalization and gives the example of the French. The French have over estimated the number of immigrants that they think have migrated to their country. Other examples that Ghemawat provides include the percentage of Facebook friend that a person might have overseas (which is greatly over estimated) and the percentage of international phone calls, first generation immigrants, and foreign direct investment.

I agree more with Ghemawat and his argument that the technology for a flat world is there, but not that any people are using the technology. I also agree that the estimates for practicing communication across boarders and with people in different countries in greatly over estimated, leading people to believe in the idea that the world is flat.

Web 2.0

I think that my experience of the web does reflect the definition of web 2.0 as depicted in the readings. According to the readings, web 2.0 is a newer version of the web, compared to earlier versions, that allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue in a virtual community. Most of the time when I am using the web I have access to options that will allow me to share the content that I am viewing in order to engage in dialogue through social media in a virtual community.

For example, just the other day I was reading an article that was posted on the Springfield Journal Register’s website that I knew my friend would be interested in. On the website page there was an option to share the article via Facebook. I shared the article, tagged my friend, and we engaged in dialogue.

I see most of my online experience as passive. Most of the time I am not creating or sharing content at all, I am a consuming it. 90 times our of 100 I just read the content my self and move on. I usually do not share content from the internet because if it is interesting enough, someone else will surely share it. Sometimes I kick myself for not sharing something because I want to show someone the content and cannot find it again. As for creating content on the internet, my blog posts, Facebook profile, and the occasional post are as far as I go.

Network Neutrality

If the situation came down to the right circumstances, I would probably pay more for internet access. I believe the situation would come down to picking and choosing what luxuries you want in your home. Even if you do not have internet connection in your home, there are plenty of other access points available. You could always connect at a public library or most public restaurants.

The only reason I would keep my access is completely due to convenience. It is not practical for me to drive into town to a public location, especially since I live in a rural area, just to access the internet. If I absolutely had to use the internet the I would use my cell phone data plan to connect.

For me to completely unplug the price would have to be raised so significantly that I would be forced to pick and choose my luxuries. The day I have to choose between my cell phone or internet connection in my home is the day that I will unplug.

Data Collection and Privacy

I think that it is very disturbing to know that the NSA collects about twelve filing cabinets worth of information on the average American in one year. This data that they have collected includes everything from your text messages and e-mails to your phone calls and internet usage. The act of collecting almost all of your digital communications is extremely intrusive, however, I also feel that there is little that we can do about it.

Privacy is important to me. This nation was founded on the very basic principle of privacy and freedom from the crown when it came to the church. The perceived sense of security is not worth the loss of privacy. There is not way that the NSA or any government agency can effectively sort through the ridiculous amounts of information that they collect on U.S. citizens daily. Instead, they categorize us based off of simple key words and phrases. This makes me feel like I have to watch out for what I say in the form of digital technology or fear the wrath of the government agencies.

I do not agree with the current state that our country is in because it seems like we are assumed criminals until they have invaded our privacy to the point that they can finally feel safe to call us innocent, although we have shown no signs of deviance in the first place. I have actually been looking into a program called cellcrypt. Cellcrypt is a program that encrypts all digital technology. Programs like this weird me out in some ways. The company advertises for government-grade security certification. It costs a small price to regain your privacy back, however, I feel like if someone where to use this technology that they would be put on the forefront of the NSA’s data collection efforts.

Other than encryption software, I think that change will not occur unless it occurs in the form of a social movement. Almost everyone would have to be on board for the movement to be a success. Until that happens, I’ll see you in the FEMA camps.

Cyber security

Most people in America are avoiders. What I mean by this is that people can know that there is an occurring problem, but will do nothing to help fix the problem or try to prevent the problem from occurring again unless the problem affects them in some direct way. This is a little off topic, but none the less a concrete example of the previous scenario that I have outlined.

In my community there was a huge crack in the road right in front of my house. Every time I pulled out of my driveway it felt like I was driving on an abandoned dirt road. Aside from the obvious inconvenience, I was worried about the wear and tear that the rough treatment was having on my car. I wrote a letter to the mayor of my town asking him if he would fix the problem. My neighbor that lived across the street got word of my request and expressed his feelings negative towards me. Eventually the crack grew so big that it took up the entire street and started to effect him as well. Suddenly he changed his views on the situation and joined my side at requesting to have the issue fixed.

My point with the example is that people do not worry about problems until it is too late to worry about them. This is exactly why Eric Butler, the freelance software developer from Seattle developed the software “Firesheep.” Butler was trying to make people aware of a problem before it got so far out of hand that no one could fix it. I think that he was successful in making aware the fact that our cyber security sucks, yet we have not really done anything to strengthen it either.

I think that we can all agree that cyber security is important. It is just not important until our information is compromised or since the 1970’s and Whitfield Diffie.

As far as encryption goes, I would be willing to try and take an extra step to make sure that my information and messages that I send are private. I’m not 100% how it works yet, but from what I understand the extra step seems to be worth the trouble.

Applications Versus the Open Web

When it comes to using the open web, most of my use of the it comes from being redirected from an application via smart phone. When I sit down to purposely use the open web, I am most likely doing research on a specific topic using the library’s databases. I have recently discovered that one of the database sources from the library (EBSCOhost) does support a smart phone application.
The advantage of using apps is that everything is bundled up into one, easy to operate, platform. The disadvantage of apps is that a lot of functions or features within the app are merely links to external web pages. This means that you must use the app and the open web to accomplish your task, with a lot of navigating back and forth. The back and forth navigation can be frustrating and confusing.
I spend most of my time using apps, simply because they function better with the device that I use. I do not think that it is very useful to pull up a full sized web page on a device with a tiny screen. The large format and tiny screen makes for difficult navigation and also makes it hard to see what you are trying to view.
There are very few differences between using an application and the open web. Applications are designed, or supposed to be designed in a way, to provide easy navigation, with everything that you need right at your finger tips. It is like the company that made the app is designing the experience that you are going to have with the information. I think that the open web is designed more for free reign and you control your experience. You navigate where you want to and how you want to get there is up to you. There is no set way to use the open web. The open web is more of a free experience.
Although the web may be hard to navigate, I think that people are trying to make it more easy to access from a mobile platform. They are catering to the mobile ecosystem. In order for the ecosystem to work, the elements with the system must be in the mobile platform’s favor.
Touching on Evan Hansen’s statement about the second coming of Jesus, as controversial as it may be, I think all that he meant was that if Jesus returned as an app he would be easier to access. Apps are just bundles of information that one may be to lazy or unmotivated to seek out on the open web. With all of this talk about apps being easier to access and probably more popular than the open internet, I can agree with Hansen that the internet, and the open web, are here to stay.

The adoption of new technology.

     The introduction and acceleration of new technologies makes us as the consumer believe that we are investing in a product that will enhance our ability to communicate in a better and more efficient manner. With the acceleration and introduction of new technologies, we expect that out ability to be able to communicate effectively will increase, when in many cases this is not true at all.

     Basing my decision off of Moore’s description of crossing the chasm, I would consider myself to be in the early majority. As stated in the article, early adopters must deal with the problems and glitches of a newly released products, while the early majority can wait until all of the bugs are worked out to engage in the technology.

     I think that waiting to explore the new technologies has an advantage as far as communicating with others goes. As an early majority adopter, when I see someone with the latest gadget or an early adopter, I usually engage in a conversation about the technology with them. When everyone has the same technology, people tend to keep more to themselves because they already know about the technology and what activities that person is engaging in.