final project

final project

Exam

Log on to Web CT. Good luck.

Final Research Project

Here you go, Nathan, my final project: the website called Dangers of Facebook.

Net Neutrality

So. Net neutrality. Basically I have a hard time to believe the fact that this is in our future. I do feel it is something we should be concerned about because if ISP's do start charging premiums for Internet access we will completely lose all freedom of what we once had. However, this is business. If I were CFU and noticed that 90% of all of the web access went to Facebook then I would possibly charge someone a small premium for the access to that website. Another form of access I would consider charging customers for is p2p sharing. I realize that this is used for legal use but a majority of the traffic is for illegal use.

The use of the Internet is supposed to be free but I don't see this freedom lasting for long. We should act now and help to protect our freedom on teh intarwebz. Paying 90$ for premium Internet access sounds completely ridiculous but hell...look at satellite television.

-This is the post we talked about...

project

Okay- I figured this all out so be proud
here's my website about free culture for my final research project

Project...

Here is my website..

It contains my study - as well as story about an online character by the name of Travis Lutz - ENJOY!

-Reese

My Website!

Here is the link to my website: Facebook Vs. Myspace

I have never made a website before, so I am particularly proud of this one!

My project is a study on the top two online social communities, facebook and myspace. On my website you will find graphs from past research on the uses of both sites as well as a documentary I created from interviews with UNI students, enjoy!

Megan

Dexter's Project

Click here for Dexter's project.

conform... baaaa

Come join my Facegroup group "What Type of Sheep are You" on social networking types... you'll have to login to facebook to view :(

Website

Here is a dandy little website for all y'all to check out.

http://web20wells.freewebspace.com

Gossip Blogs

Check out this site, and comment back here which gossip blog you should be reading!

check this out.. and maybe post?

what would be way cool is if people wanted to check this out and post to it!

http://writeweb20.blogspot.com/

take 2

In case you are too lazy to copy and paste it into the browser...my project is here.

Link to my project

I believe that we are supposed to post the link to our final project on here, if I am wrong it is just your lucky day and you get it anyways.

http://h1.ripway.com/kharr/index.html

Pirates?

Unless I missed something, I am thinking that I am supposed to blog about pirates. Gyarrrr. Piracy boils down to nothing more than claiming another's property as your own. 18th century pirates pillaged; modern pirates download. It took a lot more physical effort to be a pirate in the 1700's than it does today. I can't really blame them. There isn't anything more satisfying than taking something from someone else while not even leaving the comfort of your own home. Well, apparently there's this thing called a copyright. If a person has an item that's copyrighted, then another person cannot claim copyrighted material as their own without legitimate representation. This is usually in the form of monetary payment. So if I download Ashley Simpson's I Am Me album, then I would be stealing from Geffen Records. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) can then come after me for money because I stole it. As a quasi-musician myself, I would actually want people to download my music; any publicity is good publicity.

! ! ! Mission Accomplished ! ! ! the ordinance is defeated ! ! !

I was talking to my neighbor's landlord a couple days ago and the topic of the landlord accountability act came up. As requested she passed my information on to city council to grant them access to the facebook group. This is the response I received:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Michael,

I represent Ward 4 on the City Council. I also work and teach at UNI. Melanie Griffith saw me at an event and mentioned that you were interested in information regarding this whole rental property proposed ordinance. She mentioned something about Facebook... (I don't even know where Internet is, muchless Facebook!)...

I too want to let students know what is happening--which is NOTHING. In a nutshell:

1. The council was exploring two ideas about a year ago: A) how do we better engage the landlords about certain issues on their property (not all of them have anything to do with renters), and B) how do we prevent chronic problems from occuring.

2. Nearly a year went by, and staff told us they are lookinginto another town's ordinance...

3. About a month ago, all of a sudden I receive a call from a landlord who was beside herself... "this an outragous ordinance", etc. I said, what ordinance... and she proceeded to tell me. I told her that I had not seen it yet and that Council was not even consulted about it yet.

4. And it turns out that neigher landlords, nor neighbors, nor renters ever were consulted.

In response to this poor process, at the first meeting it was briefly discussed (a public meeting that several UNI students attended) I insisted that we first get substaintial input from all stakeholders before we move ahead. And then at the last Council meeting, Councilman Darrah and I proposed that the Mayor appoint a committee of stakeholders (landlords, students, city staff, neighbors, etc.) who would review and revise the whole idea, BEFORE any further action. The Council in a 7-0 vote fully supported what I have pushed for--a fair process. Sires knows all this.

5. But the landlords and some students who have only listened to the landlords' pitch, keep talking about this "ordinance"!! There is no ordinance. It was a crappy first draft proposed ordinance, without anyone's input!! There is no urgency about this, because the council has not passed any ordinance and is not about to. But the some landlords and others keep scaring students as if something bad is about to happen, and of course their solution is "Vote for Sires" because, I imagine, they want one of their own friends on the Council.

This issue is not an "are you in favor or not in favor" type issue. It is about quality of life in our neighborhood around the University for students, neighbors, landlords, businesses. We all have a lot of work to do, and I have been doing it by bringing a lot of people together to work on it. It is not just about "making things pretty" on College Hill. I have worked hard to involve students in improving off-campus life around the Hill area.

My hope is that students who vote will consider all my accomplishments, all I have done for College Hill Area. More information about my accomplishments are at

http://enshayan.blogspot.com

Please take the time and read my take on the matter based on the news release I sent to the papers today (see below). The second version is more detailed.

Any way you can help share these ideas among students, please do it. There is no threat of eviction, no nothing. Please let me know if you need more information... Sorry for such a long email.

Kamyar Enshayan

319-266-5468

319-273-7575

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact:

Kamyar Enshayan

Enshayan for City Council

266-5468 or 273-7575

enshayan@yahoo.com

Enshayan Calls for Collaboration, Better Working Relations with Landlords

Cedar Falls, Iowa, November 19 – Kamyar Enshayan, the incumbent in the upcoming city council run-off election for Ward 4, is calling for collaboration between all community members in reviewing the recently proposed "landlord accountability" ordinance. Enshayan wants to help all stakeholders work together to find creative ways of resolving certain rental property issues, rather than just more of the same.

"The recent proposed ordinance, which did not seek input from landlords (nor tenants, nor neighbors) further deteriorated city-landlord relations," said Enshayan. "It needs to be clear to these small business owners that the city cares and is fair. Right now, for these small businesses, all we have is sticks and no carrots. We need a good balance of both."

"Neighbors' concerns about the condition of some of the rental properties are very real. Our code enforcement efforts over the last two years have been successful, and we need to continue; but we also need new approaches," Enshayan said. He proposes the development of incentives to help property owners maintain and improve their properties. "What if we offered certain incentives to help a responsible rental property owner make energy conservation improvements, which would help the tenants as well as owners? Or improve the façade, or landscaping to make it pleasant to whole neighborhood?" Enshayan asked.

Councilmen Darrah and Enshayan led the council recently in asking Mayor Crews to appoint a committee of stakeholders – landlords, tenants, neighbors, council members, city staff, business owners and others – to review and revise the proposed "landlord accountability" ordinance before any further action.

"All sorts of great things will happen as a result of developing positive working relationships. I am a strong believer that dialogue and better understanding will always lead to better decisions," said Enshayan.

- END -

A more detailed descripotion:

November 19, 2007

Press release by Enshayan for City Council

Contact Kamyar Enshayan 266-5468 or 273-7575

Need: Encouraging neighborhood-friendly rental properties by improving working relations with property owners

Background: We all benefit from well managed rental properties that complement their neighborhoods. While many rental properties around the city are well-managed, some with chronic problems (yard trash, poor maintenance, noise excess, unshoveled snow in the sidewalk) continue to cause trouble for neighbors, and the problem is severe in Ward 4.

I think it is fair to say that some landlords may perceive that City Hall is always after them for something, and that the city has done little to help them as small businesses. Rental property owners receive a notice or penalty when something goes wrong, but what encouragements do we have for well-run rental properties?

Certainly, the recent proposed ordinance, which unfortunately sought no input from landlords, tenants, or neighbors, did not improve city-landlord relations.

Because of this misstep, the council asked the Mayor to appoint a committee of stakeholders (landlords, tenants, neighbors, council members, city staff, business owners and others) to review and revise the proposed "landlord accountability" ordinance before any further action.

The italic parts above have not been emphasized in the media enough, which fans the flame of more misunderstanding, and unnecessary worries.

Enshayan's proposed solutions: I am a strong believer that dialogue and better understanding will always lead to better decisions. My hope is that, the appointed committee, if facilitated properly, can arrive at win-win solutions that will be robust, practical, and benefit the entire community. Here are a few I am hoping for.

• The last couple of years of code enforcement has been very effective in some ways, and therefore reviewing the accomplishments and identifying new strategies might be a good first step.
• Improving communications with landlords was the original intent of the proposed ordinance. The idea that better communication can help resolve problems. Let's focus on that. It was suggested that we make landlord's phone number available to neighbors so that minor issues could be resolved easily. Other such ideas are needed here.
• The city has been very generous toward new developments on the edge of town, but the improvement of existing neighborhoods (and commercial areas) also requires a caring investment of time, creativity and financial resources. That's what "urban renewal" policies were meant for. What if we offered certain tax incentives or cost shares to help a rental property owner make energy conservation improvements to benefit tenants as well as the owner? Or to improve a façade, or landscaping that could enhance the whole neighborhood's appearance? A successful program would help the City and landlords develop positive working relations.
• Some realtors discourage families new to Cedar falls to locate in the College Hill area. That happened to our family, but we insisted that we wanted to live near our place of work. Rehabilitation, creative financing, and redevelopment of existing older homes and neighborhoods can make Ward 4 attractive to young families who wish to live in modest-sized homes. This would increase the number of owner-occupied homes. Through involvement of various stakeholders, this committee can help the city plan and become a major force in re-inhabiting the core of the city.

Many creative ideas could come out of more dialogue about ways of revitalizing our existing neighborhoods. At the center of any neighborhood renewal plan, especially in Ward 4, are rental property owners. The City must develop better working relationships with them.

Do Not Read Me

All music already exists. It has no form, but every aspect of music is already in the universe. The only thing musicians do is put form to what is already there, kind of like putting water in cup. Nobody can own music or the parts that make up music. Music is a mixture of several elements that are as natural to this world as dogs eating each other's poop. Rhythm, sound pressure, dynamics, accents, tempo, harmony, dissonance, consonance, tonality, atonality, frequencies, silence... the list could continue. As musicians, we manipulate these elements. As music producers and remixers, we re-manipulate these elements. I would argue that as digital technology advances, it allows more people the ability to re-manipulate content thus allowing them a sort of creative freedom experienced by the initial musicians. This leads to creative expression through music by more people than ever before, but not the extension of music as artisan skill in the same sense of the original manipulation of the elements. Remixers are not musicians. They take musicians' manipulations and use a computer to manipulate that to their own means. That doesn't mean it is any less creative, but they are not the same. Remixers should give credit to those they sample though. One could look at it and say, "Hey, why don't you come up with your own shit? Oh that's right. You aren't a musician." That's not to say that there aren't remixers who are musicians. I just know very few who are musicians more than they are computer geeks. Like I said before, more people can participate in this re-manipulation of the manipulated elements of music. It is a decidedly more inclusive culture, and possibly a little too "lowest common denominator," So much to the point where so-called piracy and copyright infringement is as widespread as the legs of the old woman who lived in a shoe.

My point: In terms of music, nobody owns it. The music has been around longer than any of us and will be around long after we are gone. Drum beats aren't created by people. They are discovered through creative manipulations of the elements. If I want to sample a six second drum beat, then so be it. It is a fucking drum beat. It is fucking music.

I don't even know where I'm going with this post. Music is music, no matter how it is created. Anyone can do it. If you're gonna sample someone's shit, give them some credit, not because they own it, but because it is respectful. It isn't hard.

There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a farce.

Comparing Apples and Storage Space

I wouldn't steal twenty apples from a grocery store to eat. For one the apples are going to get bad before I even got to eat all of them and so there would be a wasted effort and there would be wasted apples. No one wins. I may, if I feel so compelled some day, steal twenty apples from Wal-Mart and make an apple-slice-replica of the building from which I stole the fruit from. This is a fruit remix or medley if you like double meanings like I do.

The difference in music remixing as a cultural movement is that there is far less criminality to what Girl Talk is doing compared to what I'm doing (my action would be far more political and less enjoyable in total). Music is a commodity to those who sell it. Music is also, to everyone else, an experience, a passion, a medium for expression of emotions, beliefs, and any other thought that needs to be pushed out in some form. There is life in the construction of something from something else. A different life. The blatant theft and useless squandering of a commodity in this case musical tracks or apples (both for consumption) is much more wrong than re-creation.

What Lawrence Lessig is saying is that there is a need for copyright laws, but there is no need to lock up everybody who takes something that doesn't belong to them. There can be great value coming from this renewable resource's theft. Sometimes that theft leads to something even more valuable than a granny smith version of your local neighborhood evil-mart, maybe even more valuable than the evil-mart it represents.

.

Yet again, another piece of media that completely makes sense, and it isn't produced by the intellectual "elite". GCBC encompasses a TON of ideas in which I feel we need to become more active as a society to protect. I thought it was quite comical how the US Government is yet again enforcing their power in other countries in which they do not belong (Pirate Bay). One tracker Demonoid.com has been battling being taken off the internet for months now. Currently, it is "down" simply because the authorities threatened the company renting servers to them, instead of taking the problem on directly. However, the message at the web site states that they will eventually return...thus proving that piracy will prevail.

As far as sampling goes, everyone is guilty of it in some way. Here is a wiki article about the Amen Break, which is a 6 second drum sample that nearly EVERYONE has stolen some clip from. This is a great example of how piracy is invading into nearly all forms of creativity be it an NWA album or a simple car commercial.

When I create any piece of media or art, I realize that someone may eventually pirate that and use it for their own creative means. As opposed to getting angry and suing them, I would take that as an honor that my media, that I created was good enough for someone to actually take that and turn it into their own. Take that drum beat that I created, or the video that I shot, or even the design for a website and used it for a "cookie cutter" to make their own piece of media.

There's a reason Jack Sparrow's a generational icon.

I found Good Copy Bad Copy to be a very interesting perspective on copyright. The film expresses that piracy is inevitable, and I agree. Just like the pirate generation of the past, we are always willing to rebel against some old pasty dudes (with or without the wigs.) Whether you think it is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. For me, I will buy something I think is worth spending money on...but how do you find that out? I think for people growing up in a generation with the recourses to skirt around copyright law, piracy (which Dan Glickman of the MPAA describes in the film as "theft intelluctual property without compensation") is a starting point to weed through the gazillions of media sources out there to determine for oneself what they deem "Intellectual property." If I hear of a new band and some people tell me I should buy the album, I will take it upon myself to "preview" that artist. If they are unoriginal--and therefore "unintellectual"-- I will not feel bad about listening to their album before deciding to waste my money on it. The industry must ultimately come up with a way for artist to be compensated by fans, while realizing there is no way to avoid piracy.


Speaking of originality, I am a huge fan of recreativity or reconstruction. I think Girl Talk put this concept in perspective when he said "everyone is bombarded with media enough that I think we've almost been forced to kind of take it upon ourself and use as an art form...that's what's happening with remix culture" If everything has already been "done" then why not redo it to make it better? (and I'm not talking about producers and actors alike making money from a fourth sequel of an already crappy movie.) Growing up in this digital age means an overload of information and media. Why not express yourself through the very sources we are absolutely swimming in. In the film Lawrence Lessig also says "Copyright...can prohibit creativity." Should one's imagination be forced to limit itself for the sake of appearing "original"? If an idea spawns from an existing idea, I say "Get off your ass and jam!"

arr

Ok. I'll admit that piracy is wrong. But I think there are defiantly some gray areas. There is a lot of music. A LOT. When you look at how many genres there are, and how long music has been around, its going to be hard not to copy someone else a little. Many musicians listen to a lot of older groups to get ideas and new things, and try to create their own sound off of that. The musicians they listened to did the same thing. In a roundabout way you could almost say that someone like Dr. Dre is ripping off of Bach. Now I know that idea is ludacris, but there could be truth to it. I think when it comes to piracy stuff, we just have to look at what the artist did - is it a remix? is it a new play on an old idea? is this guy a total hack and completely ripping off someone else? I hear songs on the radio today that have an exact same pattern and background as a song from the 70's, but they don't get hit for piracy at all. As consumers, we just need to be aware of what we are listening to.

Wanted: New Copyright Laws

I find piracy to be a very engaging issue since almost everyone is affected by it. Although many may not know how to download all the latest software for free off the internet, most people know how to download music off the internet, or even just burn a copy of a CD from the original. These are all forms of piracy and piracy is one of the most heated and discussed issues in technology today. Institutes that enforce copyright law against pirates understand that it can never be stopped, but this does not deter them from enforcing the laws on individuals and making an example out of them. While I agree that piracy is wrong, I don't always agree with how the rules against it are enforced. Recently the RIAA decided to crack down on college students. I feel that the way they are singling out these college students and using the members of the university to enforce their dirty work is entirely wrong. It also seems that the monetary penalties are a bit high. If the so-called pirate decides to settle up front and out of court the fee is on average $3,000. Artists should definitely be compensated for their work, but it seems with the use of the internet in downloading music there needs to be a new system incorporated to achieve these goals. They mentioned in the documentary Good Copy, Bad Copy the idea of a bulk payment issued for one year that would enable someone to download as much music as they wanted to. To me this seems like a good idea. At least the artists would get some kind of compensation, rather than nothing, which is happening now. I thought the musicians within the film were very interesting as well. It is amazing how someone can change and rearrange music with the use of computers. I believe if copyright laws are too strictly enforced we may miss out on a lot of good, interesting music. We should allow creativity to flow and not hinder it with the overuse of a law that is now aged well beyond its use.

The Many Flavors of Free

Lawrence Lessig is a pretty visible figure in the discussion of copy rights, privileges and freedoms. He's pushing for real creative development and ease of exploration within a cross-disciplinary media culture implied by electronic communities (collectively known as the Internet ;) What Creative Commons and other licenses like GNU provide is an outlet for multimedia artists and computer programmers to share their work openly while opting to maintain a bit of control over the potential of being ripped off. While they may provide their software and source for free, they may be free of implying any sort of warranty. Even when free, they may also demand that it never be modified. They could demand that even if modified and redistributed, it never be sold (become payware). Other creators may opt to release all rights - allowing anyone to profit from or re-engineer the software or media as they see fit. To me, the best flavors of free are those that promote more freedom. Applications like DVDShrink are not open-source, but are completely free to use and are incredibly well designed and updated. They are often built off open-source code distributed under a flexible license. Other apps, like Apache, PHP, and OpenOffice, are direct competitors to payware that dominate PC's worldwide. Keeping them free provides an alternative to the high costs imposed by the big boys, but it also encourages the community to improve the products themselves. Sure, software developers deserve some dough too, so many will find ways to attach paid services to their products instead of destroying their manifestos of information freedom. Why shouldn't you go free? Maybe because transparency breeds knowledge. But who should you really trust? Your payware probably has more security holes, anyway.

Who Really Owns What?

I think the most interesting question posed by one of the speakers in the video was, "Who really owns what?" That question is truly legitimate because music in today's day and age doesn't ever seem to be the "first of its kind" anymore. Variations of genres of music are so vast and widespread, who's to say an artist was the "original" recording artist? I think the notion of lawsuits and copyright infringements can go too far; I really do. Just because an artist heard a riff and got an inspiration from it doesn't mean the artist stole the music from the original source. The example the video illustrated was a Dr. Dre music video that contained some background music consisting of three notes. Those notes were taken from another hip-hop recording artist's song and remixed to sound almost entirely different. Isn't this idea an act of creativity and inspiration rather than copying and stealing? I believe it is sad that there was a lawsuit resulting from Dr. Dre's video because he was "borderline copyright infringement". I think he heard something that inspired him to be creative with a completely different sounding song entirely. If everyone had the mentality that music is stolen from a simple three notes, I don't think much music could ever be produced because the truth is, any sample of music can sound similar to something else even if the artist was completely ignorant of the other sample. There would be lawsuits for every new piece of music. So, the man's question from the video is completely up in the air. It is very hard to tell who really does own what piece of music.

taking a different view

As Electronic Media students, it would seem almost blasphemous to be against piracy in any way. The whole aspect of our major revolves around ways to beat 'the system'- to prove that we are smarter and better. It seems that way sometimes, anyway. I understand the idea of creative work being made public for all and it seems difficult to argue with that when a DVD costs $27.95 as a mediocre Jennifer Lopez gets paid over four million dollars for every godforsaken hour that she's on screen. It also seems absurd that the industry would be surprised at the uprising of piracy. Their entire bases is built on advancements in technology, they look for any possible chance to use it to their advancements. How, then, could they not have understood that the layperson would use it in the same way? On the other hand, a certain respect has to be paid for those that work below the actors: set designers, costumers, and production teams. After all, these are jobs that many of us aspire to do and their salary is increasingly cut into due to piracy. It seems almost ridiculous to charge for entertainment now and to not use what we have learned. But we are sitting on the outside looking in. Perhaps then, it is merely a matter of perspective. Will it be the same for us in 1o years?

Microsoft Paint - yet another way to procrastinate thesis work.

While watching Good Copy Bad Copy I continually thought about how the standards in academia seem so different. One of the people they interview even tried to make the analogy and said that he publishes books for a living and does so with the understanding that college students all over could possible mis-cite his work. In some ways that analogy works for me - after all, when I write an article I use other peoples ideas to the point that sometimes I am not even sure when their idea ends and mine begins. I get to do this in academia so long as I provide some sort of credit at the end of my paper. The analogy breaks down for me though when I think about how academics don't make money from their writing (usually or very much). The main reason that academics write is so that they can get tenure at a university and get a pay check for that university and thus it doesn't hurt them financially. I have always thought of musicians as different because they make music in order to make money from it. Towards the end of the movie though I realized that maybe that isn't where the bulk of profits are supposed to come from - maybe musicians should depend on things like concert sales and therefore not depend on the sale of CDs for profits. I guess I am still trying to work out whether or not the analogy to academia works in this instance...for now I am perfectly content being an academic pirate and just "thanking" my sources at the end of my papers much like Girl Talk does in his liner notes.

Yo-Ho-Ho a Pirate's Life for Me

The Tetzlaff reading gave me a better reason to show interest in the pirate "phenomenon." I use quotation marks because it is referred to in news television and magazines as a phenomenon. In truth, a phenomenon is something that happens, and it slowly either dissipates or vanishes without a trace. That could have been done about five or six years ago. But now, pirating has become a business, a way of life. I know a friend of mine from high school that has pirated movies and music for years now, and only has to work at his job about twenty hours a week, and still is able to pay for his $350 a month rent. As a good comparison, I'd like compare the issue of pirating to the war on drugs. Pirating, while not as widespread as drugs, is getting to that point. And since it is as secretive as drugs, then the outcome of said governement intervention may be the same.

Uncertainty Lurks...

I don’t know how to feel about piracy, intellectual property, and copyright for sure. I think that creative property should be available to all, yet I think that artists should be paid or at least recognized for their efforts. Give credit where credit is due, whether that’s fiscally or mentioning the original artist’s name in your CD’s liner notes. Buy the song, whether it’s online or from the CD if you plan on remixing it. It would be what you would want the next musician/producer to do if they manipulated your original work. Sampling and remixing are not new concepts, older arts have always inspired or been mimicked in new arts. Now it’s just a matter of copyright laws and giving credit where credit is due. I found “Good copy, Bad copy” to be a very interesting documentary, and really opened my eyes about piracy, remixing, and how “creating” can mean a bunch of different things.

Obscure metaphors, Yayhoo's, Gizoogle's anda Michroschoft's...

Pre-script: Sorry this is late...

Ok, so net neutrality is like an itch that you can't scratch. It's what everyone wants, but no one might get. It's soon to be the battle between luxury and right. Anyway, the idea of net neutrality being taken away is not something that the users want, but something that the corporate powers want. Not even so much the corporate powers, but the Internet Service Provider powers. I mean, if I were an ISP I would want more money for nothing. It's understandable. I am in college.

That is not the point! The point is that large corporations (Michroschoft) would be willing to inflate the bank accounts of ISP's in order to get their content to the user first. The end user only viewing Michroschoft's content as opposed to Yayhoo's or Gizoogle's.

You might be thinking, 'What's the big deal with that? I like Michroschoft.'. Well, what if WebCT has an article that I need to read for Communications Technology class and your ISP (CFU) decides to allow Michroschoft to rank higher than WebCT. All of the sudden you are reading the top headlines on MSN.com instead of a certain behavorial targeting article. All because you couldn't access the beloved WebCT.

Yeah, it's pretty jacked and this issue will be here before we know it. So vote YES on Net Neutrality. (Power to the People)

*sung* It's blog, it's blog. it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.

In Blood's article about blogging she speaks of rules that she proposes all bloggers should follow, and even though these are, in general, good rules to go by when writing blogs, I don't think that these should be followed. Even though I don't blog, except for this class, I must say of the blogs i have read recently nobody really wants their blogs to be that professional. Now maybe I am reading the wrong blogs, if there are wrong blogs, but people seem not to care to much about accuracy as long as there ideas get across. Since this is for a class I tend to follow these rules she gives just so I keep myself in check. I wouldn't want to give false facts or incorrect statements in something like this or why would I even bother.
Net neutrality is a word that I had never heard of until last year, and even though I know what I want to happen, there is little to no chance I will ever do anything about it. I believe net neutrality to be a good thing, but when I was reading I couldn't help but think about the communications industry and their attempts to get people to switch networks because theirs is more clear. What I may be failing to see is how this is any different from the situation with the internet. In my mind all phone lines appear to be the same, it's just different companies saying that theirs is more clear than others. I remember an MCI add with pins dropping and the idea being shoved in your face that you could actually hear a pin drop over their phone lines, well aren't all the phone lines the same? Clearly they were up to something... and I think it was Candace Burgeons fault.

Write it down

With blogs so ever popular these days, it serves as an easy way to get your opinion voiced if you're looking to be a professional journalist, ranter, or just enjoy writing to let family and friends know what's up. But if you're looking to be on the professional side, Rebecca Blood makes a couple good points of "journalistic ethics" you should follow while blogging. I also like her point of if people wanted to accurately cite some blogs as credible sources some day in the future, then this type of online conduct should be followed. "1. Be truthful. 2. Link your references. 3. Correct mistakes. 4. Don't rewrite, delete, but add to writings. 5. Disclose conflicts of interest. 6. Note questionable and biased sources. I think following a set of rules like these can be a huge part of the blogging future and whether or not blogs be seen as professional and accurate sources. Danny threw out a couple of good statistics in his presentation today, one with around 10% of internet users are bloggers. We could see that number increase if blogs are used as credible sources someday and people are required to subscribe to blogs that they need for academic articles / professional sources.

A little part of me dies on the inside everytime I admit to seeing this movie.

One of the arguments that Poster made that I was particularly fond of was that sometimes working within constraints (ie. “the system,” and yes I think the scare quotes are warranted in this case) is okay, productive, or even desirable. Poster writes that “the "postmodern" position need not be taken as a metaphysical assertion of a new age; that theorists are trapped within existing frameworks as much as they may be critical of them and wish not to be; that in the absence of a coherent alternative political program the best one can do is to examine phenomena such as the Internet in relation to new forms of the old democracy, while holding open the possibility that what might emerge might be something other than democracy in any shape that we may conceive it given our embeddedness in the present.” Sometimes leftist politics feels like it has become the Liberal Olympics – a test of who can stage the more radical revolution. It’s not that the rev is always bad and all but I think sometimes leftist politics forgets that sometimes you have to do your work while being “trapped within existing frameworks” and even resist and challenge those frameworks at the same time. It seems totally possible to me that a person challenge a system from within the confines of that system so long as they understand that they work within that system. I am much more troubled by the act of living in denial about how one is part of and sustains the systems which they challenge. Which reminds me of a scene in The Devil Wears Prada. I can’t find a clip of it online but I found the lines online here. The premise is that Fancy-pants designer Miranda hires not so fancy-pants Andy to be her assistant. Andy thinks (proudly) she is the antithesis of the fashion world. In this scene Miranda points out that despite her very intentional desire to resist the world of fashion, she is quite involved with it.

Miranda Priestly: This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

Say you’ll fix it, and get my vote

The thing about net neutrality is that now is our only chance. There is no chance in a grass roots movement creating legislation on "cable neutrality" where HBO and Showtime have the same cost per channel as Comedy Central and that crazy foreign channel nobody watches. The reason for this is our nation is one that focuses on profit for entrepreneurs more than it is the mystical noble entity so many flag toting red necks would like it to be Enough legal loopholes are in place to grantee that Mediacom and CFU will continue profiting on what was once thought to be "public air space"

Unfortunately, I can’t think of a single piece of legislation that has ever gained enough support to become a law before there was really a need for the law. To my knowledge, no ISP has started, or made plans to start charging for certain web sites. There are problems that ARE pressing at the moment, and are still not receiving enough attention for changes to happen—Global Climate Change, AIDS and poverty in Africa, K-Fed being the most fit to raise children. Lets use another future problem as an example, Social Security is arguably a bigger issue than Net Neutrality, but still politicians are constantly saying they will do something about it; then ignoring it completely.

The Berlinternet Wall

“Technologically determined effects derive from a broad set of assumptions in which what is technological is a configuration of materials that effect other materials and the relation between the technology and human beings is external, that is, where human beings are understood to manipulate the materials for ends that they impose upon the technology from a reconstituted position of subjectivity.”

I read this line a few times and it dawned on me that I am of not only of sub-theorist intelligence, I am probably working on primate level. As I eat a bowl of applesauce that is resting on the article that I read this from I think about my complete and utter inability to care about that which does not directly affect me. Net neutrality of course does. I worry about this at times. Global climate change? Yes, for sure. What have I myself done to improve the weight of my opinion on either? Next to or right on top of nothing. These ideas are pushed most effectively in my direction by content I have found or been introduced to while interneting. Like Germany the internet is something to alter the way people think as well as drive metal spikes into pieces of wood. Like college as well it has given me much to think about and much to hope for in my future. I’m not a revolutionary, there as well is no real need for a revolution. Practical and even thinking can keep a tool/sphere what it is, without tyrants being able destroy it’s “driving” ability to both keep things simple and push complex thoughts into simple minds.

Reality will be sweet!

First off, I would like to apologize in advance for what I think is going to be a non-sequitur of massive proportion. I just couldn't help myself. After doing all the readings I've got two different visions of the future in mind. One is more likely than the other. But the idea that one might be "ridiculous" isn't going to stop me from telling you about it.

The article about the Al Gore Video "Al Gore's Penguin Army" shows that lobbyists from cooperations and the government can pose as amateurs in order to use our own viral media against us. I thought this was interesting considering the emphasis on "reality" in today's pop culture landscape. So follow me on this one.... What if in several years governments and businesses become so incorporated into our "real media" that the reality as we know it becomes scripted and predictable? Suddenly reality isn't real anymore and all the plot points become easily recognizable to the point we always know what's going to happen. The entertainment consumers will probably get really mad and start looking for ways to counter it. From then on everyday we'll have to wake up and foil some sort of terrorist plot. I'll have to engage in a slow motion battle with ninjas every time leave the room. Whenever I drive somewhere I'll have to evade the police in a back alley somewhere. After a while even that will get boring and TV will have to compensate by thinking outside the box and implementing reality TV 2.0. We'll see shows where real people do real things....like foil terrorist plots, run from the police and fight ninjas in slow motion. This new reality will be our new outlet and our lives will return to the same mundane stuff they used to be.


OR......

The Government will continue to use our fear against us so we consent to more and more surveillance, and more and more regulation and violation of our civil liberties....seriously don't be afraid and you will take their power away.

It's true because i read it on (insert obscure blog)

I am a big fan of web blogs. They are a source for "uncensored, unmediated, (and) uncontrolled (information)." I can get a no holds barred approach to news. Sure you get some biased articles and rants but that is part of what to expect from an amateur writer. The trick is to weed out the bullshit from the substance.

Web blogs are often targeted towards a specific demographic; tech blogs towards young adults and teens, gossip sites towards younger girls, and video game blogs towards gamers specifically.
Many times they tell the reader exactly what they want to hear.

Rumors are all over blogs and that is partially what drives the. Big media won't print stories based entirely on rumor and that is where blogs gain a lot of appeal. It gives readers something to talk about and to speculate over.

Bloggers should be help accountable for bad information. Rarely do you see a posted correction regarding bad information online. Mostly it seems, that many of bloggers depend on their readers and response forums to sort out truth false information.

Many times at Best Buy people come in after reading online that a CD has been released only to find that we don't have it yet. Online sources for such information are incredibly unreliable. Buy people are often angry when we tell them that we don't have the product in question. They view their online source as literal fact and believe that we are wrong. This shows the level that some people trust online sources and blogs for information.

The problems that derive from trying to classify the internet and it's culture are not new nor are they exclusive to this one form of technology. What makes the internet so different? The government sees it's power and claims to use it carefully to prevent predators and the wonderful catch-all phrase of the word 'terrorism.' But in the age of Net neutrality, we have to ask what the government is really studying the internet for. Surveillance is not a new idea (as we discussed in class) and the idea of surveying it as a culture is quite limited. But, instead the issue is, using the internet as a way to elaborate that 4th branch of government that once was run only by journalists and now is able to extend to bloggers as a way to exemplify the original idea of the public sphere as a place to talk about events. However, as Nancy Fraser so well put, the original Habermas public sphere was a way for a select few people to discuss public events. The internet provides much more as a way for even counterpublics to divide into a greater mass of thought in articulating differing interests, values, and beliefs as well as providing a safe place for the members to gather. The government has long seen this action in reality but the use of the internet as a tool that can be used either way (http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm to see the more lesser side of the internet as a way to join and discuss issues.) Officials know this well.

The New and Improved Public Sphere

After fumbling through Poster's CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere, it all sort of came together. Poster says the age of public sphere as face to face talking is over. On this I would have to agree. Although there are still campaign rallies and debates the public sphere is now expanding to include other forms of communication amongst people. With the now wide-spread use of the Internet as a communication tool more and more people can express their opinions on-line. People that may have not had a voice that was heard before have a better chance to get their message out there. Post writes, "One may characterize postmodern or post Marxist democracy in Laclau's terms as one that opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process." These previously excluded groups include people of ethnicity, disabled persons, women in a patriarchal society, and etc. Now members of these groups can utilize these new methods of communications without being subject to discrimination. In the original public sphere communication was face to face and a speaker could be judged by their appearance or gender. This changes when you allow the public sphere to include the Internet. Now the main area of focus is on what is being discussed and typed on the screen. While the Internet does not completely eliminate discrimination of gender and race it allows it to become less focused on. I would agree with his idea that lack of representation may be a problem, being that the majority of Internet users and bloggers are Caucasian males. This idea could also tie in with the idea of aura that he mentions. I like that idea that aura is much harder to acquire in communities on the Internet. It seems like the little people can have as much say as anyone else. Things are not dominated by some lobbyist or person with lots of political power.
Net neutrality seems like something that every one of us should be fighting for. With the use of blogs, Internet communities, and viral media the fight can be broadened and reach more people who may not understand or know about it. The phone and cable companies are making enough profit from us already, and there is a chance that net neutrality can prevail. Internet users need to join together in the public sphere of the Internet and fight for net neutrality.

The Road Warriors of the internet

I do agree with the pro-net neutrality group, but on the issue of bloggers, I must say this: most of the bloggers aren't out to promote net neutrality. A lot of the bloggers don't think about ethics. They just post what they think, whatever the cost, in order to just be heard. Hasn't anyone thought about the bloggers that deliberately post false information on the blogs? And with a lot of internet users believing most of what they say as truth, then these type of bloggers have succeeded.

My analysis of the psyche of the blogger I can relate to the character Mad Max. He doesn't care about anything else other than the bettering of his current situation. I believe that most bloggers wouldn't care about higher pricing for the internet, they'll still pay to get that same feeling of importance. If most bloggers are everyday joes, then they wouldn't want any part in most debates, whether it affects them or not.

Speaking of nuetrality...

Mark Poster's CyberDemocracy makes mention of existing political theories including LacoueLabarthe's insight on the "limitations of a "left/right" spectrum of ideologies" as well as Laclau's view of a democracy "that opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process."
I believe that most bloggers, including advocates of Net Neutrality, seem to adopt the romanticized view of Laclau's democracy in which, through the internet, an individual's form of expression or standpoint can be heard loud and clear, even if it apposes those who wish to keep certain groups or ideals subjugated.

I guess my problem would be seeing a middle ground represented in the "left/right" spectrum previously mentioned. We are often taught to think of things in terms of black and white, this or that, and this is nothing new to the advent of the internet. But people seem to think that a wider range of "gray" tones are represented in user created media. I have found the opposite, in that bloggers and those alike, choose a particular polar standpoint on a situation. You either love Firefly or you are a troll who hates it. You viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" and support Gore's efforts, or you think he's a blabbering idiot trying to hypnotize followers. You want the net to be "free" of corporate control or you are a million-dollar mogul looking to capitalize. You are a Democrat or a Republican. I'm guessing that those "12 million American adults" who keep a blog generally represent some polar opposite, and if they don't, their arguments are not viewed as often. I'd like to see a broader representation of the material out there in cyberspace. Maybe something in a RGB, or better yet a CMYK scale.

Read Me Too

The guy who wrote the article on CyberDemocracy (who shall remain nameless on this blog, except in citing his quote) needs to rewrite it so it doesn't suck and resubmit it for my approval. I haven't seen shitty writing like that since... well... since my last post. But there was a question he asked in the section about Cyborg Politics that made me chuckle, considering he wrote it in 1995:

"Assuming the U.S. government and the corporations do not shape the Internet entirely in their own image and that places of cyberdemocracy remain and spread to larger and larger segments of the population, what will emerge as a postmodern politics?" -Mark Poster from CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere

Funny how that is just what has been on the cusp of happening. Nameless Dude made the assumption of Net Neutrality, probably thinking it preposterous that anything else would transpire, but here we are with the possibility that cyberdemocracy may not be so democratic anymore. Lenhart and Fox's introduction to their research brought up the contention that "blogging promises a democratization of voices that can now bypass the institutional gatekeepers of mainstream media." Hehehe..... not without Net Neutrality.

Perhaps Net Neutrality rests in the hands of viral memes aimed at promoting it to the masses and more narrowly to the decision making parties. It seems to me a very democratic process at work in the online public sphere.

Extending your reach with cyborg politics

In Poster's discussion of public sphere politics and the internet, he comments on the evaporation of face-to-face contact in exchange for the electronic faux-meetings of videoconferencing and bulletin board posts. Within these arenas are brought the inherent politics of the program as well - as an analogy of the controlled inhibitions of a face-to-face meeting, there is a referent to the social pressures of writing wildly on a medium "the whole world can see" (enter obscenity masking and other forms of moderator automation - Judith Perolle's notion of machine control). While somewhat valuable to point out the Internet as a "postmodern technology" (a conglomeration of related and unrelated materials unified by protocol and hierarchical structure), the concept of cyborg politics is even more pertinent. It implies not only an extension of the individual's abilities to interact, influence, and ultimately manipulate others through technological venues, but also the simplification and reduction of task sets, the skilled operation of these functions, and a holistic reliance on their existence. Without the cybernetic appendages of the individual, the politics would be useless. That can be said for both the politician and the "voter", meaning that both the promoter of ideas and the viewer of the concepts must be present on either end in order to experience the products, possibly being 'infected' by one another. Cyborg politics is largely about the maximization of node participation, with effective participation becoming transparent to the user - simply one more message within their daily umweldt; these connections feeling as natural as a handshake. With extension becomes unification by extension - webloggers included. By design, it is easy to escape the association of a blog ( make your site look professional, don't be personal, and don't use Blogger), as well as the freely associating your amateur journalism as a blog (send your ethically-viable posts everywhere you can, even when you are walled by a spam detector). There is a tricky balance in play that sacrifices credibility for increased viewership; appearances are [almost] everything.

The Power of Video

The article that stood out the most to me in this weeks readings was the article from the Wall Street Journal on video spoofing. The use the example of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." The article discusses Youtube and other internet video sites, but what interested me is the way they described how internet videos influence the watchers but in ways that they don't even realize. Sites like Youtube have millions of viewers each day and with spoofs like this one, people are watching videos that contain false information and this information influences the way in which people view certain matters, especially in politics and public policy. It is hard to say who creates these videos, but as the article goes on to explain, they are created to harden the views of those who already view certain issues negatively. I think there is something to be said for advertisements that pop up on search engines when people type in words related to a particular video. There is an art to micro-targeting your audience and making them pay attention to your message. Along with the other readings, internet videos are just one way to get a message out to a mass audience. Public spheres communicate information and points of view to many people and are quite affective. In Poster's article, videos were used to convince the Congress of health-care reform by purchasing ads. Not all of the information in public spheres is completely accurate, just as any opinion, but that voice without limitations can be just as much of a weakness as it is a strength.

Here's the link to the video if you haven't watched it: "Al Gore's Penguin Army"

“Damn The Man – Save the Internet!”

It’s quite obvious that the Internet has enhanced how we maintain communication while defying geographical barriers. And now The Man is attempting to either censor our communication or capitalize on it. This is not a new idea, and this appears to be a common theme/statement made in class. None of the ways that corporations or the government have been trying to manipulate this new medium is any different than how they reacted to any other new media in the recent past. Therefore, I’m going to make my post short and sweet:

Net neutrality is a necessity to refrain from instilling a chilling effect against the expression of and access for people across all classes, genders, and races.

The Internet has the potential to change politics and how people interact within the political realm: much like the telegraph/phone, radio, and television did. Moreover, the Internet is enhancing the globalization of the world taking communication beyond the aforementioned.

Blogging is on the same level as local access television or radio: the little guy being creative within the new medium. The chilling effect I mentioned could force people to stop using the Internet in this creative way.

Drop a tip in the jar on your way out of the store… Let’s keep the Internet out of corporate’s hands.

Bloggers and Ethical Fun

Rebecca Blood's ideas on Weblogs are quite interesting. We have talked a great deal about blogs bring about an immediate source of information, but contain a great deal of "junk" as well. This junk can be misinformation, trolls, and people just not taking ideas seriously on the Web. Blood points out how "the weblog's greatest strength — its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice — is also its greatest weakness." I really like this idea simply because I think that the more people are attracted and absorbed into Web Blogs, the less grip of reality they lose because information becomes jumbled around and the truth can be lost. I think this is what Blood is also referring to with this statement. Bloggers have no attachment or dependency to outside factors like the newspaper or television industries do. Advertisements and endorsements are not necessary for bloggers to maintain control over their respective web pages, so the material within those pages can pretty much be whatever they want it to be, regardless of Web ethics. It's like Blood says, "rumors spread because they are fun; corrections rarely gain much traction because they aren't as fun." This is the case with online bloggers who use their blogs as legitimate information sources; lies and misinformation can both be interpreted as facts, and no one may take the time to undo the errors that are causing a great deal of damage online.

internet politics for the rest of the world

We are focusing fairly specifically on experiences of North Americans in this course, but we should understand also how much more pressing good old fashioned government censorship remains for much of the world. Read the short piece from ArsTechnica here and also "Everyone's Guide to By-Passing Internet Censorship for Citizens Worldwide." We should be worried about net neutrality in the US--the likely results of losing it are frightening--but I would maintain that government censorship is significantly more dangerous than capitalist enterprises trying to maximize profits.

Post attempt #2

Throughout our lives, we have all been faced with the inevitable rise of prices. As college students, it would seem strange if tuition actually didn't continue to elevate even though, I thought, you could not put a price on education but whatever. The point is that we, as Americans and as consumers, should be well-versed in the swindling of money as well as the want for the maker to continue to trick us. Advertisements are large and flashy. This has been the ploy of a salesman for decades. Why on earth would it change now? We see the internet as an unbiased tool. As an instrument built exclusively with our needs in mind. This does not change the fact, however, that the internet is product for consumers. It is a place where one can purchase anything their hearts desire. How, then, can a person justify ignorance in not knowing that the prices change and that the accounts double? I am not saying that people are stupid but if they are not aware of the fact that plane prices get pushed up through online tracking or if they think too highly of the internet without doing research for the best deal then they are responsible for their own education. Sales have not changed. The only shift has been in the medium. If anything, people need to be more aware of this then in the past since the purchase of an online product is just a few simple numbers. Do the background work. Don't be lazy. And above all, don't assume that technology is the answer to everything. It remains the same.

Clicking on Capitalism

It's pretty common to see custom-tailored advertising on the web. As a web developer, I have known about this technology for a while, but never really paid attention to it. I first 'noticed' it, probably last year when I was checking my g-mail account and realized that the ads in the sidebar were almost verbatim to the e-mail that I received. It's not really that big of a deal to me. I just don't look at ads online; let alone click on them. I think that if advertisers want to create custom advertising, that's great. They can reach far more of a demographic then if they used generic advertising.

As far as 'Dynamic pricing'' goes, I don't really have much of a problem with it. Even if the price change is in your favor, it probably wont be that much of a change to make it worth writing home about. Also, if you are at a site and if you know that they use dynamic pricing, then you shouldn't buy from that site if you don't agree with it. On the other hand, if you are at a site that uses dynamic pricing, and don't know it, then that's ignorance. Ignorance is bliss. All you need to do is shop around and compare prices from different sites. If one site is cheaper than another, buy from them instead. So don't knock dynamic pricing. It's capitalism, and if the companies can bank off it, that's fantastic.

Whoa...eBay has everything...

One main article that really caught my attention this week was about Behavioral Targeting and price changes based on sales. This is in no way a new idea and has no relation to the Internet in general. Is this fair to the buyer? No. However, this does get the seller the highest selling price possible. In a way, I would compare this to eBay. If I go onto Amazon and start to sell a CD that I recorded for 5 dollars and it begins to take off would I raise the price?... Of course! But, if I add this CD to eBay and the demand rises the buyer sets their own purchase price for this item. This is the main difference between Amazon and other seller driven markets versus eBay and other comparative resources.

Another complaint against eBay is the idea of sniping. I can sympathize with those who have lost an auction in light of a successful "snipe". But, I have also been able to get that last "bullet" off with a clear "headshot". This clearly angered the losing bidder but I really needed that item. I suppose the connective point I am trying to make is that although there are some major criticisms against eBay, I believe it is successful when used in a correct and ethical manor. In a typically seller driven market, eBay gives the buyer a choice as to what price they wish to purchase that particular item. Yes, it may be relative to the other buyer's offer however that choice is still evident.

coolblue22 has been sniping me for years...

I found it very interesting in the reading how sites such as amazon.com track your buying tendencies and base your price on that information and it makes me wonder, do people set up certain computers and buy cheap shit on them so amazon thinks that this person isn't as well off so they get the better price? I know this may sound ridiculous but I'm quite positive that my grandmother would use this technique just to save a penny. I know this because on a daily basis while growing up we would hit at least 3 grocery stores a day in order to find "the deals"... and then go play bingo.
eBay has always been some what of a mystery to me... i try and sell good stuff and it never sells... then i try and sell crappy stuff for ultra cheap and it went for $150 (USD) who are these people paying that much for crap? However in the reading I did learn one hell of a lot about eBay and how it works. (i'm sure there is already) but there should be a manual very similar to that "Pez" paper that everyone should read before they go on eBay all willy nilly, if I knew then what I know now I probably would still be selling stuff on eBay. And interestingly enough when those women were talking about trolling and searching for misspelings in auction items to try and get them for cheap a very similar thing like that happened to me only i didn't get dicked over by troll(er)s and the item never sold.

Read Me

"So I'm sitting here eating Reduced Fat Nilla® Wafers (they contain four less grams of fat than the normal ones) and drinking AE® 2% Chocolate Milk from a half-gallon carton. I'm looking at my unruled Oxford® index card with notes from the readings, but all I'm thinking about is how these Nilla® Wafers are delicious. My card says something about data mining, price customization, behavioral targeting, and customer relationship management. I'm thinking it has something to do with online advertising... just a hunch. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with all the advertisements I've been getting for Bacon Strips Adhesive Bandages...."

I do believe data mining and the like are the future of online advertising, but it raises the question of privacy. It's interesting how on eBay® the knowledge of your activities can be a good thing, yet elsewhere on the web, companies data mining can be seen by customers as creepy. I certainly see it that way. Following my every move on the web for price customization gives me the heebie jeebies. But I suppose if it weren't for dynamic pricing, I'd have paid twice as much for my Second Life® boob job.


Love,
Dexter

It is what it is, just like it was way back when they said that "it is what it is"

The readings here seem to reflect repeatedly that advertising on the internet is much like early advertising, in any form. All advertising and marketing is about deceit in one way or another. You are shown an unbalanced summary of a product by the seller (not manufacturer necessarily) so that you will be interested and buy.

You can spend more money at one store than another store for the exact same product simply based on how much the other store knows people will pay for it. It certainly scares me that I may have paid less on Amazon had I been more informed before I wanted a Frames album delivered to my home, but fool me once shame on me…you see where I’m going with this. Marketing to as many people as you can and making as much money as you can is a simplistic way of explaining large-scale business practices. They are just fooling a lot of intelligent people on the internet currently and it is making a lot of those people feel duped and unintelligent. As far as I can tell people don’t like feeling that way and won’t stay quiet if they find out that they are getting a raw deal.

Creepy Stuff

Sites like ebay and amazon.com are playing off of our desire for speed and our tendency towards impulse. With ads tailored and adjusted towards you they can effectively lure you in by showing you a low price that someone else might not get because of different surfing habits. Of course it does make me uncomfortable to know that these companies know about how much I would pay for a shirt or a new book (which for me is not much).

Imagine this in real life (Tyson). An employee at Best Buy following you around in their blue shirt seeing exactly what you look at, buy and don’t buy based on the price. They would see you go to their competitors and see what you buy for what price and either make their prices lower or higher. That kind of creeps me out. With as much business as online stores such as these get I am surprised that this has not been addressed earlier. It is a shady business practice that should be eliminated.

I personally don’t believe that data mining is an “essential business process”. I really don’t want an internet site to know exactly what I am looking at all the time. Sure it helps with their advertising but I never click on ads that come up anyways for fear of annoying pop ups and spyware.

It says in the Washington Post article that “Advertising.com Inc. and Claria Corp. -- which match ads to Web-surfing histories rather than to search queries…..registered last month to hold initial public offerings.” I find this incredibly wrong. Someone is really making money off of knowing exactly what I look at instead of what I simply search for? In my opinion this is extremely wrong. I care a lot less if someone tries to sell me a CD because I searched a certain band than someone who bases their advertising directly off what I look at online. But at the same time, If I look up a picture of Lindsay Lohan then I don’t necessarily want to buy her stupid CD.

Oh and the creator of my favorite website, TV-Links, was arrested and his site was taken down. Sad Day.

http://www.daily.colex.org/site-owner-tv-links-illegally-arrested-on-whim-of-media-tycoons/

http://www.dailytech.com/Largest+TV+Piracy+Site+Shut+Down+Staff+Arrested/article9338.htm

But thirty more similar sites appear.

http://tvteddy.blogspot.com/2007/10/tv-links-replacements.html

Apathy or Optimism?

It seems there's a lot of crap being sold. There's a lot of mindless drivel on TV, I haven't seen a lot of quality movie previews lately, and don't even get me started on the sad state of radio music. It seems to me that this proliferation of commercial crap is a direct result of marketing practices. There's too many people for a network, an advertiser, a record label, a production house, to really "know" its customer base. Sure it can real off an endless stream of Arbitron statistics (by the way I'm convinced Arbitron is a play on the word Arbitrary)that say the average customer is a middle aged Caucasian male with high school diploma and 2.6 children. (That's two children plus one benign tumor.) But do they really "know" you? I for one am legitimately excited about the possibility of individual based marketing. If I'm willing to pay a certain price for a certain good than that's what I'm willing to pay. It seems people are forgetting the meaning of the word willing. Sure it may seem fair....but when was anything ever fair?

That warm and fuzzy feeling is a false sense of security.

Ramasastry explains that many Americans are convinced that price customization is and should be illegal. They are also outraged to find out that it commonly happens. I think this first reflects the general lack of knowledge most people (I am generally part of this category as well) have about online shopping and the online experience in general. Just as the article points out, no one really reads the terms and conditions anyways. Second I think that the reports about specific companies serve the same function as reports of people getting fired because of facebook - it only makes clear what some people already know but refuse to acknowledge. Car dealers offer different prices all the time but the minute some of us get online there is some warm, fuzzy feeling that takes over and lulls us into a sense of security, assuring use that we are protected from all the things we think should be illegal. And as an aside, I wonder if all the people that think price customization is bad think of it as broadly as other practices such as student and senior discounts.

Self Control?

All this debating over price customization is really unnecessary. For starters, everyone has a choice to purchase an item at the price that is being asked. If they feel the price is too high then they can walk or click away. No one is forced into buying things. It is the demand they have for the particular item they are thinking about buying. How bad do they really want to acquire this object? For some the demand is higher so they will pay the higher price. Are they being ripped off if someone else is offered the same product for a lower price? I would say no. The other person's demand for the product is lower so they might not buy it at a higher price. It is just like the idea of a sale. A lot of people will buy things at regular price because they want them, they think they need them right then. Others may not purchase these items at regular price, but will do so more willingly when an item goes on sale. Getting the product off the shelf is the only desire of the seller, whether or not they have to make some price cuts. It all boils down to intelligent consumers and the amount of demand a consumer has for a certain product. I think the idea of buyer beware would sum it all up.
eBay on the other hand allows the buyers to pick the highest price they would be willing to pay for a certain item. While there are some not so ethical tactics being utilized on eBay I still believe it can provide positive experiences for on-line shoppers. You may be sniped or jack up the price on yourself, but that goes back to the idea of buyer beware. If you don't want to spend the money than just say no. Don't let yourself be dupped by anyone, make an informed decision for yourself and if you cannot don't put the blame elsewhere. eBay is beneficial because it offers a place for people to find rare and obscure items, or things they couldn't find anywhere else. It offers them a place to find things that they are interested in, not just what corporate America tells people to be interested in.

eBay: A New World Marketplace?

After these readings, I realized that sites structured like eBay are a reflection of the society that we now live in. As our society becomes faster, the need for more independence arises. With independence comes the desire to oppose control in any form. This is why people are offended when they find how various online shopping communities (Amazon.com, for example) have been studying shopping behaviors and adjusting prices and ads to reflect said shoppers. People don't want to feel like their patterns can be predicted and advertised things that they may or may not want.

eBay is different from the companies that analyze behaviors. The webmasters of eBay step back and let people do what they want, with the usual common-sense rules to keep the good character of the customers. With the feeling that they can control what they are doing, eBay customers feel that independence that they so rightly crave.

The five values

A big part of being a good seller on Ebay is knowing your demographics and being able to market to that specific sub-culture of whatever you're selling. As you go to point out in your article, people like Pam didn't have expertise in bidding on items and therefore was jacking up the price against herself. Because the items she was bidding on contained a childhood importance, people like Pam engage in "sniping" to get what they want; overpaying on an item when they could probably have it for less. Not all people are like Pam, however. Jarrett goes to show us ebay's declaration of community values. "We believe people are basically good." "We believe everyone has something to contribute." "We believe that an honest, open environment can bring out the best in people." "We recognize and respect everyone as a unique individual." "We encourage you to treat others as you want to be treated." Well, too bad everyone isn't like this. Check out http://www.aboutpaypal.org/home to get a list of "Paypal and Ebay horror stories".

The subversive database

The big scare used to be tracking cookies - you know, little textpads of information stored on your computer, accessible over dozens of sites that carried the same ad banners (It's a huge market too - DoubleClick and aQuantive were bought out big-time this year). The cool thing about these guys is that even your "block 3rd-party cookies" didn't actually block them, because the cookie was tagged on the image's server, not the webpage. So you surfed around the 'net, feeling anonymous while these crawlers snagged your digital vitals. A lot of information (your IP reveals your location and your referrer reveals the last page you looked at) can be extracted from simple web-browsing, and in the end tracking cookies don't really matter. Why? Because connected websites can track you anyway. They don't need to stash a piece of text on your computer to do it, they just need to communicate with other websites. Kind of like the way creditors share information about your history, sorting you into purchasing profiles and assigning you scores. While this information does sometimes compute to higher prices for certain users, it will likely be circumvented as long as there are buying incentives like bargain websites (and maybe, just renewing your IP address). Are you leaving it up to Amazon to provide a deal that you can't refuse at the highest price you're willing to pay? That's what eBay does with your consent, and Nathan's article argues that well. What he doesn't mention are the costs for the seller - which, between ebay and paypal fees markup to around 15% - which I feel are causing inflation within the market. Granted, it's a larger user-base, but why should a broken LCD screen go for just $100 less than a brand new one, warranty and all? It probably has something to do with the small fortunes that can be gained in the repair/resell of listings (Beanie Babies, anyone?).

The DL on BBV (shh.. they might throttle my JOB)

I was interested to read about online marketing ploys and the terminology used by their corporations . It brought to mind the popular practice of "throttling" by online dvd rental services. Essentially, high-use customers (ones renting multiple movies at a time with unlimited plans) started causing corporations to lose money, because their movie turn-around time requires these corporations to spend more on shipping movies to the customer than they make from the monthly subscription fee. The answer is to delay the shipment (days or weeks after the product's availability) to high-use customers, so that the corporation can spend less on shipping, still making a profit from subscription fees--throttling. Consequently, priority is given to more profitable customers (new customers or those who rent less) to receive titles before the non-profitable high volume customers.

Netfilx has already admitted to this practice as it is ambiguously referenced in their terms of use, but they refer to it as "allocation"stating "We reserve the right to process orders and otherwise allocate and ship DVDs among our subscribers in any manner that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine." The other leading company (which I will refer to as BBV on the off chance that some corporate online investigator finds one of their employee's name on a blog referencing this shady practice) has never admitted to throttling. But it is very clear from high volume customer observation and complaint that they are not the priority on the shipping list. This same company having lost billions of dollars in the past several years, in both their retail stores and online, have recently upped the price on all online subscription packets and have limited the free rentals received in-store (a bonus of the online subscription.)

I guess my question to these companies, and those discussed in the readings, would be "should you really depreciate customer service so much by adopting shady practices and betraying loyal customers in order to gain a buck?" ...Their marketing research says yes.

bogus!

I understand that online business is becoming one of the biggest industries out there. I also understand the purpose of tailoring to peoples wants. It makes sense. In on of the blogs previous to this the writer talks about the ethics involved in it. That was my first concern, and not so much the ethics, but the legality. I'm not sure I want companies knows how much I'm willing to pay for a plane ticket or a pair of shoes. I know that this goes along with a lot of things we have already talked about this semester, what with surveillance, and people being able to see lots of stuff about you via. social networks, but is it ok for businesses? If you walk into a store, the employees don't follow you around to other stores you go into. They don't sell you a shirt for 5 dollars more than somebody else. If the internet is going to be continue to be a major business ground, this needs to stop. I say this because i believe as people realize what is happening, and it does begin to happen more, online businesses will lose credibility. Now maybe I'm completely wrong and the American consumer is too lazy to care or do anything. I wouldn't put it past a lot of people. But it seems to me any average person with average intelligence would say... hey - this isn't right. I can also see something happening where you are a thriftier person, and business won't offer you anything because you won't pay enough. The whole idea is just not good.

A Vikings Dammit Doll...Just What I've Always Wanted!

Whether a person stumbles across a product on a site like eBay or if the product is directly targeted towards them through an online add, what will influence a person to actually buy that particular product? Is it a violation for cookies to track your every click without your permission...

Danna and Gandy wrote that data mining is "being seen as an essential business process." I don't think this it is necessarily ethically wrong for a company to use data mining, however, when I think about being tracked every time I look at a product, it kinda creeps me out.

It is true that online advertising can target a mass audience for a fraction of the cost of a television advertisement, but just as this blog points out, the supply of online advertising is so great, while the demand is relatively small. So, it makes sense that companies would try to target the people they believe to be the most interesting in their product.

Although I just said that it makes since, I might be contradicting myself when I say, I think in many cases, behavioral targeting can be more of an annoyance than anything else. Just because I was trying to find a text book for my China class on Amazon.com does not mean the I am interested in every book ever written on China. Yes, it is better to see ads for items that a person may have more interest in, but just because I bought a Vikings Jersey for my Boyfriend online does not mean that I want to see an add for countess Vikings memorabilia.