COM125 Assignment 12: Trust: What It All Comes Down To

Within the content of this course, Intro to the Internet (COM125), just about everything interrelates. I especially think so when the topics were covering such material as internet privacy, identity, and online community. To me, an underlying message was present communicating the similarity of these three very different, yet similar subjects.

Online communities have become more prominent with the increasing growth of the internet over the past ten to fifteen years. Whatever your interests or beliefs may be, there is an online community waiting for you to support their same ideas or be there for you when you may think you are a loner in that particular area. A sense of community and belonging is very important for an individual's mental state. It keeps them stable as well as provides them with a sense of comfort which is necessary to be in the back of someone's mind. Essentially, this is a type of 'support system' allowing the individual or individuals to express themselves freely without criticism from those closest to them. Fernback and Thompson (1995) write, "[Community] refers to a sense of common character, identity or interests." "Community becomes so thin because workplace and residence, production and consumption, identity and interests…." The internet has really done just the opposite for what Fernback and Thompson have expressed today's culture have done to community; it has brought back togetherness and common interest in people of all geographic locations of the world.



So where do the topics of identity and privacy fit into online community? Well, when exposed to an online community, in which one participates or belongs to, they essentially create their own identity which depends on their thoughts of privacy. One may create a pseudonym, or false name, to disguise their real identity. These pseudonyms are very important in the safety of online user's personal information. As discussed in an earlier blog, it is not very difficult to gain access to someone's credit card information, social security numbers, and so forth, if someone is trained in doing that sort of criminal activity. Therefore, people disguise their real information in hopes that it will better protect themselves from identity theft and other crimes. These disguises should not be harmful in the trickery and false leading of others however. Donath (1996) writes, "Some [forms of identity deception] are quite harmful to individuals or to the community; others are innocuous, benefiting the performer without injuring the group. Some are clearly deceptions, meant to provide a false impression; others are more subtle identity manipulations, similar to the adjustments in self-presentation we make in many real world situations." When someone has belonged to an online community for some time, and has become comfortable with the community itself, they may be prone to disclose more personal information than is necessary. It is important to not do this because online identity thefts can gain access to any website at any time if they want to. Wikipedia writes, "Regular Internet users with an eye to privacy may succeed in achieving a desirable level of privacy through careful disclosure of personal information and by avoiding spyware." Major challenges of maintaining privacy are heavily due to technology such as cookies, IP addresses, and spyware.

Principally, when exposed or part of an online community in which one feels comfortable with the information and population of the community, they protect their personal information, their identity, through certain types of privacy. What it all comes down to is trust. Do I trust this online community in which gives me support with my real name and so forth? Evaluation of trust vs. risk is the underlying message throughout the topics of online community, privacy, and identity.

References:

Donath, J. S. (1996, November, 12). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Communities in Cyberspace, Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html.

Internet privacy. (2007, April 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:34, April 18, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_privacy&oldid=123076810

COM125 Week 14: "Let It Be", According To the Beatles

The internet exists to provide anyone goods, services, or information at the click of your mouse. It has taken decades from the start of the internet and the first file sharing, to get it to the enormous giant of what most people would agree they cannot live without today. It is to my understanding that right now, the internet is not controlled by any one single person or corporation, but by everyone who uses it. Yes, of course different aspects of the internet are controlled such as the regulation of webspace use and fees for internet access, but no one single source claims the internet as 'theirs'. Net neutrality, a term I knew little about before writing this, seems to be a hot and controversial topic; its appeal received the attention of a wide range of audience members including everyone from artists to businessmen. To be net neutral means to not place any restrictions or authority on the type or content of files traveling over the internet. People arguing on the side of net neutrality believe that large corporations such as AT&T or Verizon, under conditions other than net neutrality, will start controlling and put priority over files they believe to be more important than others, slowing down the process of internet access and eventually blocking access to websites that in their eyes, are of zero importance. Is this not the very reason that many people enjoy the internet? Blogs: places where people can electronically express their feelings, give opinions, or spread general to specific information would have less authority over something such as a corporate website. K.C. Jones (2007) explains net neutrality best by saying, "The Internet now allows information to move in data packets through networks of computers and routers on a 'best efforts basis.' In other words, the system routes packets with little regard for what type of information or applications they contain or who created them."



On both sides of the debate over net neutrality, great concerns arise. Competition leads to lower prices because companies want your service so they will offer their goods at a lower price than the next guy. With internet in the United States, it does not work that way. Huge corporate giants control much of the entire United States broadband internet access which makes internet access in the U.S. expensive. "The corporate giants are also vigorously fighting to stop cities and towns from building 'Community Internet' systems -- affordable, high-speed broadband services funded in part by community groups and municipalities -- even in places where the cable and DSL companies themselves don't offer service" (S. Turner). Those in favor of net neutrality are concerned that one day, internet service may just be too expensive and they will have to make a sacrifice to not have something they have become reliant on. On the other hand, I understand the business part of the spectrum. Every business hopes that they will one day rise to the top and be the leading manufacturer of a certain product however, where I draw the line between smart business and greed is when a person with an average income in the United States cannot afford something that they know should be more affordable.
The internet essentially as it is now is a place where anyone can create something and share it will millions of people. I feel the topic of net neutrality relates somewhat to open source software. Both controversial, but have gotten some software and the internet to where they are now. I feel that although the internet may today, not be 100% net neutral, it is at a completely satisfying medium. One internet service provider does not control priority over files traveling over the internet. In a Wikipedia article Bob Kahn was quoted in saying, "If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and its probably not going to be on anybody else's net."



I believe in net neutrality. If it has gotten the internet to the magnificent electronic entity that it is today, I cannot imagine what it will be like in the future. One can only wonder that if the internet were to become not net neutral, if advancements would be made to better it to the degree and speed they have done so in the past.


References:

Jones, K. (2007, March, 16). Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. Information Week, Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557

Network neutrality. (2007, April 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:06, April 13, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_neutrality&oldid=122005930

Turner, S. (2007). Free American broadband!. Salon, Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2005/10/18/broadband/index.html

COM125 Week 13: Where the Greatest Imagination Can Make You Rich

I have strong opinions regarding virtual online gaming and its effects. It may seem weird at first, but I have witnessed first hand how multi-player online games can ruin and lower someone's aspirations in life. My roommate came to college last year with very high goals of one day working in the medical technology field, something that was close to his heart. He always went to class and did his homework as well as studied for days before his exams. He was then introduced into an online game called World of Warcraft. His life went downhill. He became instantly addicted and skipped class on a regular basis to play all day and all night. Literally, he would stay up for sixty hours at a time and then sleep for twenty hours; this became a cycle until he got a reality check and saw his grades for the first semester. He was failing almost everything and he needed to get a GPA of 2.2 in his second semester to stay at the University at Buffalo. When the second semester rolled around, he promised himself he would not play the game as much and would go to class more. He knew how ridiculous he sounded when he said, "I cannot stop playing the game it is so addictive." He once again, continued playing the game for hours on end and would play through the night. When the sun was starting to rise, he would get tired and go to bed and would sleep through all of his classes for that day. Reality is setting in again because he has realized that he probably wont get that 2.2 and he will be forced to move back home. This is not because my roommate does not care about school or his future, but because the game has addictive nature and many people fall into this tornado of online gaming, never to come out alive.

Online virtual worlds and real-life should have steep boundaries. I believe that computer games should be played strictly for fun and amusement and people should not be suing other online gamers because of stolen virtual merchandise. I understand that anything can be made into a business however; lines should be drawn around where and where not the business can explore. This may be hard to accomplish because of the merging virtual and real-life adventures. Jim Giles (2007) writes, "Elsewhere in cyberspace, economies are springing up that, superficially at least, seem to mirror the real world." I love in the end of this essay when Giles explains how social scientists are going to use people to demonstrate economics through a virtual reality game. He says, "To run economic experiments of interest to Castronova, Arden will need to develop an economy that features aspects of the real world, such as inflation." I believe that this in an ingenious way of looking at many aspects of the economy, such as supply and demand curves. If people are going to be playing anyway, social scientists might as well get some useful information out of the gaming. The only problem which may seem controversial is that the virtual world would need to simulate the real-world and certain aspects of it in general.
Who knew that one could make real money in exchange for virtual merchandise? Steven Levy (2007) writes, "An eight-hour day collecting game loot can yield 100 gold pieces, worth about $30 on the black market." Thirty dollars a day may not seem like much but I have read about multiple people who have gotten very far in virtual multi-player games and have accumulated millions of dollars. 'Open' virtual economies in which people are purchasing virtual merchandise for real cash is one way that online gamers get ahead in a game. If the desire to get that merchandise is strong enough, one can actually pay someone in cash for that product, whatever it may be. 'Closed' virtual economies differ in that people can not get ahead in the game through money, but through talent and time alone. Even though the games may be extremely similar, one virtual economy is not better than the other, rather they are two very separate categories.
Online gaming explores a reality of computer animated graphics and online communication. Millions of people have found this virtual gaming technology home. I believe that before someone decides to play one of these ultra popular games which seem very low risk, they should evaluate their priorities.

References:

Giles, J. (2007, January, 4). Life's a game. Nature, 445, Retrieved April 2, 2007, from https://ublearns.buffalo.edu/courses/1/200701_256304/content/_687574_1/giles_2007_lifes_a_game.pdf?bsession=20639061&bsession_str=session_id=20639061,user_id_pk1=182478,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=

Levy, S. (2007). World of Warcraft: Is It a Game?. Newsweek, Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757769/site/newsweek/page/3/print/1/ displaymode/1098/