The Digital Divide in the U.S.

Imagine not having a personal computer with Internet access and being a college student? Doing online research for school papers and doing school assignments in general would be rather difficult. We sometimes do not appreciate the opportunities that the computer and the vast network of information, otherwise known as the Internet, provide us with; the capability that it has to empower us as members of society.

Recent studies suggest that a new digital divide is growing in U.S. society. In an article by Matt Hamblen called, “FCC says 93M in U.S. lack broadband, digital divide grows,” Hamblen writes that a survey by the FCC “Shows that cost and lack of digital skills are the main reasons a third of Americans do not get high-speed Internet connections at home.” As the article details, job competitiveness relies Americans to have the skills and means to fully participate in the digital economy, and access to the Internet is certainly a substantial part of that.

Although economics may seem like the obvious reason as to why one may not have access to broadband, but digital literacy and relevance are also crucial factors. Those without the knowledge may feel hesitant to go online as they lack the digital skills or are concerned about the hazards of going online. They may be unfamiliar with how secure their personal information may be online or they may fear being exposed to inappropriate content. Others may feel that going online is a waste of time because they lack search engine skills, which hinder them from finding content that interests them. This is why social capital plays a vital role in convincing one to gain access to broadband. Having a friend or a relative that is willing to provide one with useful information on how to use the Internet and benefit from many applications that prove helpful in everyday life is important for someone to make the transformation.

Having access to the Internet alone is not enough to fully utilize its contents. Some may simply use the Internet as a means of entertainment; failing to use it as a means of empowerment. However, that is difficult to control as it is ultimately up to the individual and his or her values to make that determination. It is also important to note that the U.S. could help the public in terms of access to broadband networks by practicing what other countries have successfully accomplished: open access. Open access ultimately leads to greater competition, higher speed availability, and lower prices to consumers. It can be argued that the existence of open access would greatly reduce the excuses one can have on not utilizing the vast information network, otherwise knows as the Internet.

Online Political Content and Its Audience

As Hindman details in The Myth of a Digital Democracy, the Internet does not have a significant effect on the democratization process. In his book, Hindman argues that politics is a relatively low concern of the American public, generally speaking, that most users do not search well and rely on top results in search engine rankings, that there is a power-law distribution online, in terms of traffic and links, which results in in highly concentrated web traffic to political sites, and that successful political bloggers are not a good representation of the general public as they all tend to be highly educated and belong to upper middle-class.

Although I can agree with Hindman that today’s social state is more concentrated with celebrities and entertainment, and that viewership of political sites is about 1%. However, there still exists the potential for political activism as witnessed by recent events. Social networking sites challenge Hindman’s idea about the communication of democracy on the Internet. The Arab Spring movement in the Middle East was organized on Facebook. Organizations such as MoveOn.org have garnered volunteers and have encouraged the public to sign and deliver petitions to their government officials, which deal with human rights and civil liberties. The Occupy Wall Street movement has also been organized with the help of the Internet. So the potential exists, however, it is up to the general public to do their part.

Hindman also uses the idea of “Googlearchy” to support his argument that the Internet does not foster democracy as Google’s algorithm called “PageRank” uses the number of hyperlinks to a given site to determine its ranking or visibility on its search engine results page. As Hindman illustrates, the Internet operates according to the power-law distribution, where a few popular sites receive the most links, and a small set receive the most online visitors.

Another contributing factor to the low viewership of political sites is that political blogs and their bloggers are not a good representation of the general population. As Hindman writes, these political bloggers are almost all highly education and are members of upper middle-class. They may not necessarily cater to all that are searching for content that affects them more directly than others. These could include rights that affect working class families, and other civil liberties issues.

I believe it is difficult to assess how society will behave. I do agree with Hindman on the fact that there could exist a greater interest in current events at home and abroad. However, I would not go as far in stating that the Internet does not foster political activism as I have witnessed it occur, as described above. There does exist the potential, especially with the explosion of social networking sites in the recent years. However, it is ultimately up to each individual to seek out information about what is going on in the world, and being inspired to influence change, by engaging in online political activism, for example.

Copyright & the Internet

The subject of the copyright and how it relates to general-purpose computing is quite thought provoking. How can the general-purpose computer and its attachment to a generative network survive if various industries and their respective lobbyists are undertaking actions to change the landscape of Internet use?

Cory Doctorow's article, Lockdown, isn't just about copyright; it is about the long coming war on computation. This war against the general-purpose computer that Doctorow describes is faced by one single threat: copyright. The fundamental purpose of a general-purpose computer, its ability to foster generativity, is being questioned. Media companies have long strived to protect their content, and rightfully so, however, as Doctorow suggests, their protocols are beginning to touch upon the concern of surveillance and censorship. He writes, “All attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits, and all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship.”

Doctorow details the different ways copyright protection was enacted over the years and the problems they caused. For example, Sony loaded covert rootkit installers on 6 million audio CDs, which secretly executed programs that watched for attempts to read sound files on CDs and terminated them. Also, Nintendo’s 3DS routinely checks for firmware allocations; if it detects signs of tampering, it turns itself to a “brick.” Doctorow urges that copyright law issues must be fixed before we can move forward in the digital age.

In Public Domain, Boyle argues the opposite of Doctorow’s argument; more copyright control. Boyle argument is that “The strength of intellectual property rights must vary inversely with the cost of copying. With high copying costs, one needs weak intellectual property rights if any at all. As copying costs approach zero, intellectual property rights must approach perfect control.” Boyle argues that the Internet be fixed to a technology of control and surveillance. He writes, “The ‘Internet Threat’ argument is that we must remake the Net if we want digital creativity – whether in music or software or movies or e-texts. And since the strength of property rights varies inversely with the cost of copying, costless copying means that the remade Net must approach perfect control, both in its legal and its technical architecture.”

Both Doctorow and Boyle raise good arguments. I believe that there should be copyright enacted to a certain degree. It should not, however, hinder the civil liberty of privacy. Doctorow, in my opinion, is thinking too freely as intellectual property rights are arguably in existence for a reason; to protect one’s property. However, as Boyle also details, the Internet can lower the cost of copying, hindering copyright protection, but can also mean opportunity. It can lower the cost of production, distribution, and advertising. In addition, it can dramatically increase the size of the potential market via Internet outlets such as social networking sites.

          

The Digital Divide

The internet is an amazing tool and arguably today a right that everyone should have.  Unfortunately, in America we experience some of the highest prices for mediocre service leaving people outside of this world wide web.

            Washington talks about a divide for minority groups who simply cannot afford to have internet in their house.  Many people instead get cell phones with internet access on them and try to use that as much as possible.  But the problem is that cell phone internet use isn’t really built to replace a home computer.  Washington uses the example of filling out job applications.  It can become excessively difficult to fill out any application on the web much less one as important as a job application.  Though the numbers of people who own laptops among whites and minority groups are becoming closer to equal, Blacks and Latinos are mainly online through their phones.

            The other aspect of the digital divide comes from Hamblen who talks about the 93 million in the U.S. who don’t have access to broadband internet.  The question here is why?  A percentage of those people just can’t afford it.  There are also a significant percentage of people who simply live in rural areas where ISP’s won’t grant access for a decent enough price. 

But the two big reasons for people not having broadband internet are the age therefore lack of relevance, and the lack of know how.  Older people don’t really care to have internet access because they don’t think there is anything there for them.  They don’t feel like there is a reason to bother.  Little do they know, there is something on the internet for everyone!  If they logged on I am positive they would find some niche to show them their own specific desirable content. Some people just lack the social capitol. They simply aren’t around people who know how to properly use the internet.  Improper use or no use at all leads people to “mean world syndrome”.  The internet is evil in their eyes and they don’t want to become a part of something that is so dangerous.  Statistics show that people who watch more TV feel more danger.  And if your not online, you’re definitely watching TV.  In conclusion, I think it is critical in today’s day, for everyone to be online.  Even if its just for fun!

The Economics of Free

The internet is creating a problem for many industries who rely on paid content for their users.  The music industry as Anderson says is “stumbling to free to slow its decline”.  The internet has made it hard for businesses to function the same way they were before, pushing them to create a new business model.

            Anderson talks about different ways for businesses to get money. Advertising in more creative ways like he describes Obama advertised inside of a video game.  We get ads in real time through video games.  Another option for companies is to create a freemium with an upgrade option.  These are the things that you would be able to access as a free customer, but if you pay you won’t have advertisements and gain other cool features.  Stemming from this idea is the idea of subscriptions. Anderson uses a great example with Disney.  Kids are going to want to upgrade and get these cool features in the next game they are addicted to and parents are going to give in eventually so that their kids stop whining about it.

            Selling merchandise is another way of getting money especially if you are releasing free content.  In the case of the music industry, people are downloading music illegally, but they can’t download a limited edition hat.  Concert sales become the most lucrative for artists today because of the decline in people buying music.  Though this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  If your content was free than your popularity would grow just as in the case of Mac Miller who’s music is on Youtube.

How to create compelling content online

Clark talks about how to create compelling content of the Internet and gives us a variety of tools and examples that we can use for our online blogging.  We can take away six of the most important tips.

            First and foremost it is important to present content in a way that sends a clear message about our brand.  Everyone has a brand and we need to make sure we are aware and approve of the content we post.  An important side note is that if we want to attract attention to our blogs, we should be carefully using keywords, not abusing them.

            Next, there are two rules that correspond with eachother. One, you need to have “ambient awareness” of your audience.  Empathy towards the people you are gearing your brand to.  And two, It’s important to know what your audience expects from you, and to give that to them.

            It is equally as important to keep links between people and other sites.  People go online to feel connected to each other and the rest of the world.  This is why blogs with forums or comment areas are so successful.

Lastly but maybe most obviously, your site should be easy on the eyes.  No one wants to look at disorganized and flashing content! On top of looking cool, it is important to have a page that makes it easy for people to navigate.  For examples on how to NOT do this correctly, please visit webpagesthatsuck.com.

Social Networking Sites

In their article, Boyde and Ellison define social networking sites as an internet service that allows users to build a public persona in a an enclosed space, and meet people that share similar interests. This is how we network with people through mediums such as Facebook, Twitter, and other prominent social networking sites.




The first Social Network I was involved with was Sconex, in high school. Needless to say, it did NOT have the same security measures as Facebook or even Myspace. People's innate need to want to connect with others, combined with a love of travel, is a reason why social networking sites are so popular.The idea of a validation system was definitely necessary, as there was a time when Sconex users were claiming to be people they weren't so they could gain more friends. When Myspace allowed users to personalize their pages, it was both a gift and a curse. "A copy/paste code culture emerged on the web to support users in generating unique MySpace backgrounds and layouts." I'm glad that feature was removed however, as the level of embellishment had a habit of taking away from getting to know the actual user.

Social Networking

          My first encounter with a social network site was Sconex back in high school. If I remember correctly the site was built for high school communities or networks, similar to how Facebook was first built for college networks. Looking back at the interface and the capabilities of Sconex, it did not come close to the application and features we have in today's SNS. And it definitely did not have the cultural impact and social influence we have with today's SNS.
          What really stood out to me in the article was how Boyd described 'Friends' on SNS. She states, "Friends can be misleading, because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied." I completely agree. Without a doubt I can say that not everyone on my friend's list are actual "friends". Some are first-time acquaintances that I've only met once, some are simply friends of friends who I was introduced to, and some are people I meet at a professional level and of course the rest are close friends who I frequently go out with or share conversations with. There are times when I add people on Facebook just for the sake of adding more friends to my list. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who does that.
          Lastly, another point that is constantly in the back of all our minds is privacy concerns on SNS. Facebook and other SNS are constantly updating and reevaluating their privacy policies to meet the needs of the users. Their goal is to ultimately protect user's information and to give users the control to control their own content. In addition, an interesting question that Boyd brings up is, "do police officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant? And as Boyd responds, "the legality of this hinges on user's expectation of privacy and whether or not Facebook profiles are considered public or private. I would think that it is okay for police officers to do that because it seems like they have been doing that since Facebook became popular. I don't think there is a definite answer to that. And that it ultimately comes down to Facebook and other SNS to decide.

Social Networking Sites: Then and Now

     I have only ever had one Social Networking Site (SNS) profile. This included the wildly popular Facebook. I skipped right over MySpace although many of my peers used the website. I am of a younger generation (I am currently only 20), and we don't have much to go on in terms of knowing when and how former SNS'd developed (and declined). So the Boyd and Ellison article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship" was very helpful. When I was in 9th grade, my friend told me I had to look at the gossip about so and so "immediately!" After she kept having to give me the lates gossip via phone calls or AOL Instant Messenger chat I reluctantly crumbled and created a Facebook. The annoying part of it in my opinion was having to fill out all those little boxes. My name? Okay this is easy... further along and after I had already wandered into the kitchen to take a snack break I had to write about my interests. Uhhhh. Talking? Walking? Breathing? What was I supposed to put here? If I was really going to be friends online with my friends in real life then they would know my interests... right?
     Well, wrong. SNS's have become so much more than a place to just look through photos of friends and family. It has become a world of a mish mash of people all interested in different things, looking for others who share those interests. And they work well! SNS's have become so popular because they give people a place to be the version of themselves that they would like to be, with people that they want to be with. In my opinion it is a little dangerous to have such successful SNS's out there because people may never leave their computer desks! But, that's where Twitter came to the rescue. It has outdated and outpaced the traditional idea of linking people who share interests and has instead made itself into a sort of international  rapid media and news sharing social monstrosity of information. Also, it is less personal. People don't specifically "friend" each other but they "follow" one another. And so you can choose who to subscribe to. Which is good because there is no intensely intimate information about any person's life on their page.
     Personally, I would prefer to cut out all of these 'online middlemen' if you will and have one webpage where I can connect to anyone, at any time anywhere and that would also include my e-mail, contacts, news and photo album storage. Of course that would put way too much power in the hands of one website instead of distributing it among many, but it would just be so much easier! Mix Gmail with Twitter with Dropbox with Facebook and voilà! That's a site that I would love to use every day! Alas, that is maybe in store for the future but certainly not now. In the meantime, I'm going to go update my status: "finally finished all 4 media class blogposts. Sweeeeeet!"

SNSs, The New Letter

In the beginning, Boyd and Ellison provide a good synopsis on what a social network site is, what it entails, and throughout the rest of the article, they display examples that illuminate this new form of communication.

One piece I found particularly interesting was the distinction of social network sites and networking. Though I do not believe that networking is strictly bounded to the idea of “…relationship initiation, often between strangers” (Boyd, Ellison 2). I didn’t view SNSs as being a large proponent of just strengthening relationships. In discussing different social network sites, the authors references, Cyworld, an SNS based in Korea, and say, “ …that 85% of that study’s respondents “listed the maintenance and reinforcement of pre-existing social networks as their main motive for Cyworld” (Boyd, Ellison 11). The authors declare that these sites main functions are to help keep relationships, not build them.

With that being said, I was confused on one notion, the term “friend”. If social network sites are mostly used to stay in touch with people you already know, why can’t they be recognized as a friend? The article says that “…the reasons people connect are varied” and yet they provide numerous statistical analysis that the foremost reason for connectivity is to sustain relationships. I know relationships don’t always have to be friend-based, but I felt that this portion of the article should have been explored more.

There were also a few things that I disagreed with or felt was alarming.

1) “Social network sites also provide rich sources of naturalistic behavioral data. Profile and linkage data
      from SNSs can be gathered either through the use of automated collection techniques or through datasets provided directly from the company…(Boyd, Ellison 10).

- This quote demonstrates how the structure and functioning of these social networking sites can help provide information on a larger populace; a group of people that perhaps could not be assembled as easily than on the world wide web. Still, does the general public want to be the subjects of anyone’s statistic? What exactly is being gathered, who is receiving this information, who else has access to it, and for what purpose is the data being gathered? These are all questions I believe the article and us readers should ponder and pay attention to. Which leads us to my second point:

2) Privacy

-In addition to the dozen of sites mentioned within the article, Boyd and Ellison pay particular attention to Facebook. They mention that “Unlike other SNSs, Facebook users are unable to make their full profiles public to all users” (Boyd, Ellison 8). While reading, I immediately said: well, that’s not true. Facebook profiles are not only abled to be fully viewed by users, but by anyone who can grab a computer and type into Google. Google has made it fully probable to look at Facebook profiles by typing in a person’s name, a phrase mentioned in a previous conversation. I have told many of my friends to change their profile privacy terms because I was able to find their pictures and conversations on the web!

So what can we do? That is the question.

All of these SNSs (unless I am unaware), asks the person for a sublet of personal information while creating a profile. The article says, “Acquisti and Gross (2006) argue that there is often a disconnect between students’ desire to protect privacy and their behaviors…” and they go on to talk about the “privacy paradox” (Boyd, Ellison 11). The paper later describes how in some forms this is not true, but I would like to take a different approach.

If we lie, we create perjury.

I know this is extreme, but let’s think about this. Submitting false information onto the web and saying that this is who we are, is against the law. Yet, we are subjected to provide it and at the same time, are thought of as being non-consciousness of the breaching of our information. How private can we be?