It's been an honor

   Was I the best blog updater? No! Did I tried to? Honestly, every time that was possible. It was not because I didn't wanted to or because I was too lazy, but rather it was because there's something about me and blogs. It's great to hear about everyone's perspectives on certain global events, but too much of this sometimes can create conflicts within the internet world. People sometimes get out of control and instead of having a debate which everyone's perspectives are respected, it becomes a war-zone where people begin to argue off topics and every issue is brought. I have read blogs (not from this class) where a topic might be based on kids playing  on a background, while the comments are completely irrelevant about the post. 

    I don't oppose blogs, is something that has changed how news are read and understood. But is taking away the quality from professional journalism. I am still a person that likes to pick the newspaper early in the morning, sit down for a coffee and while I'm eating my breakfast, I am also reading the newspaper. Old style? Of course, but this is something that has disappeared over the last decade and a half. People rely too much on smartphones or laptops to read the news now. I'm not opposing technology overall, but rather small things like this that has changed who we are as humans. 

Technology has changed the meaning of the quote "I think; therefore I am." Computers are the ones thinking for us now. There's no individual form of thinking, but rather this dependency on technology that is transferring our knowledge to computers. We overload the network with too much technology that everything becomes repetitive and there's no quality form of thinking. Everything is instant and temporary. 

I'm no one to judge. I'm not a big book author to point small things like this. But this is something we need to think about. Government is relying too much on technology and even our new form of economy is based on manipulating information. I just hope this new era could lead us to a better society. 

Diego Pereira

New Unofficial Agents: Google, Facebook, and other tech companies?

Recently I read an article (or more like a Forbes' blog post) on how tech companies are becoming a secretive (not that secretive, but in terms of what they do) and unofficial government agents.  As social networking increases, there will be a better and higher chance for government agencies to intervene with tech companies. According to U.S government, sometimes these companies have to follow Federal inspections, that means that they take advantage for such inspections to request users information. The United States is not the only company that is increasingly taking advantage of this. We have an example of Yahoo and the Chinese government. Yahoo helped the Chinese government to arrest certain individuals that were considered a "threat" to the country.
Forbes' link:
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/04/11/are-tech-companies-becoming-unofficial-intelligence-agents/?partner=fbwall

And still afraid of Google?

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/04/05/how-did-epsilon-expose-your-email-address-to-hackers/?partner=fbwall
A company that no one has never heard before has been breached by hackers. The problem with this company that goes by the name of Epsilon, is that it provides services to many corporations such as Citibank or top 10 Forbes companies. Epsilon holds information of millions of Americans and yet people think that Google is too much. It was only names and emails that were exposed, but this tells us that hackers are capable to breach at almost every company.

Google: A Big Brother-monopoly relationship

      Last week I posted a link how Microsoft is now accusing Google of monopoly. Every time I think of monopoly I just think about the game. Well, however, the whole deal people are afraid of Google becoming a huge monopoly (since it has control over the internet now) is because they're afraid of being watched by Big Brother. Uncle Sam is watching everyone and thanks to Google, Big Brother is actually watching you and knows what you're doing and what you're planning to do.
      The question that got me thinking though is, do federal laws really want to launch an antitrust probe into Google's dominance of the internet? They needed, and they know they actually do needed more than anything else now; nevertheless, Google decreases competition and is becoming a powerful search engine monopoly. Not even Yahoo nor Bing can compete against the almighty Google. If Google is becoming a "private" Big Brother instead of being run by the government, then the government should instead create a type of relationship that could help balance Google's monopoly and the federal government's "all-seeing eye."
    Google right now is like the Roman Empire. Little by Little is taking over everything, and unlike the Roman Empire, their vision for the future is greater than anything else. Today, Google is everything for us. Maybe in the future it will become everything that we need. From their inventions of creating cars without the need for the drivers to using their technology for more than just smartphones. I guess this is the fear Microsoft is having now since Google announced more than a year ago the release of their own operating system.
 All I have to say is c'est la vie in the world of becoming the world's number one company.

Google and government requests

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/

Not only the United States asks Google for users information, but as the link shows, there is a list of how many countries have done it so.

Microsoft attacks Google as a Monopoly

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/03/microsofts-antitrust-argument-and-after/36237/
Recently Microsoft has decided to turn the tables and attack Google as a monopoly. The reason for this comes after the European Union Commission blame Microsoft for the same reasons. I guess no one in the corporate world likes to lose and they tend to point the finger at those who can become a future threat to their corporate world. Microsoft recently is losing their competition against corporations such as Apple and Google in terms of advancement.

Google WiFi Going to Kansas City and other ideas

Recently, we discussed in class how Google introduced WiFi to the area of San Francisco. Nothing is free in this country and the only purpose of Google was to promote their advertising marketing for their own profit. How were they going to profit from this? Allowing local businesses to advertise is the whole new market idealism on the internet. Yet, Google is thinking to expand this idea to other areas that are worth it to their company. I don't think Kansas City is a big of a place, but is all about sponsorship. Following Tuesday's class, sponsorship is another way to promote a company's brand to consumers. This is not a new strategy but an old one. Is the whole idea of capitalism. How necessary is this type of marketing? In a world where the United States has become a modern type of empire, we have military places in every continent of the world. However, this is not the only way to promote our imperialistic ideas to the world as acting as the World's Police or the Savior of the World that comes to promote democracy.
     Furthermore, this new modernize world wants something different: capitalism. Maybe not the entire idea of capitalism, but a type of mix economy where private corporations give what the consumers want. Many have stopped relying on the government for help, but their reliance has moved towards these companies that give billions to charities. The Bill Gates Foundation is an example of former CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates, to invest his entire wealth on new science and technology to help developing countries to combat poverty and diseases. In the end, the person who will be profiting from this is going to be Bill Gates. I won't deny this strategy works, it works perfectly well. I received a Microsoft Scholarship not too long ago together with a laptop and $8,000 for my tuition. This scholarship not only made me happy, but I felt like Microsoft was my savior at that moment. I just wanted to be part of Team Microsoft and not Apple. Since then, I bought a new laptop, and guess what? It was a Microsoft Windows laptop. What I'm trying to emphasize is that our government promotes democracy through military and we see private U.S corporations promoting our economic system through all of their charity work and sponsorship.
Obviously since the death of the Soviet communism, the two optional economic system was brought just to one.  As of now, it has worked well for many developing nations. Nevertheless, the government has to come to an agreement to try to separate themselves from the economy (except in the case of China into some extent).
Movements.org is not only a not-for-profit organization that is trying to change the political landscape through new technology in areas where our nation has an interest of being there. Going back to the whole idea of Google expanding their free WiFi to different U.S cities, let's remember that Google already might have plans to expand these ideas to other areas around the world. Even though private corporations tend to help combat certain issues having their own interest in mind, it always becomes an unstoppable cycle. Many people are suffering because of this capitalist system, and private industries try to show the other side of the coin by saying they care, which in certain cases they do help, but not completely.  This is another way to promote capitalist ideas to the world.

March 24 Class

• government uses fear for capitalism
• Fear of being used as a marketing strategy and move people towards self-surveillance. 
• Politicians are listening to what we want, but they change their message toward us and they won't change their policy
• Their policy still remains the predetermined interest
• They still trying to target their message subliminally to the audience. 
• This becomes anti-democratic
•  Government creating fear over people by wiretapping their phones (China is a perfect example)
• China wiretaps the phones and use some type of algorithm in order to maintain fear over their people or prevent any protests against the government. If a certain person says a few words repeatedly that becomes a threat to their government, their phones are completely shut down. 

  Companies that install security systems in a house many times try to create an advertisement that creates fear over people. Such fear then drives people to buy such security systems which gathers data that is collected by these companies.  I do agree with Andrejevic with such ideas because this is more or less a profitable war. From Boeing and Lockheed Martin making billions by creating military jets to private corporations installing surveillance cameras within their range and making millions out of it, we have become a nation where Uncle Sam is actually watching us everywhere. Even Google has the street view software within their webpage. 

March 24 Class

What I tried to post was a list of points are class discussed. We began discussing what to do first whether or not use facebook or record our class. Personally, I was thinking whether or not to post comments in your post and maybe be one of the ways to keep you updated. However, then I realized it will be better to post on my blog what was really happening and what we really thought about today's class and the readings. It took us at least or less than 10 minutes to figure out what to do. Blogging and discussing at the same time was quite difficult. It wasn't harmful since I decided to take notes while discussing then a few minutes after, I posted some ideas of the discussions.

Live!!! March 24 class

Chapter 6 of iSpy

Points:

• Turn the war effort into this profitable war. How? After the 9/11, corporations took an opportunity to sell products that will make people feel secure. All of this became the opposite by selling products that monitor what we do. 
• In order not be afraid, you need to be prepared. 
• Tendency for people in contemporary times to be afraid of the world in general where it pushes people to join ridiculous communities where they have so many rules such as not playing loud music or not to be outside after certain hours during the night. 
• Private companies, many times are in charge of creating such places with an increased of surveillance
• Sometimes, communities like this push us away from reality, on what is really happening outside our communities
• Iraq war is an interactive war to create fear on people in order to ease the minds of the people and get private information
• We don't know the real source of terrorism
• People who are in caves are actually using all of the technology that we're using: cameras, internet, cell phones and what not
• We think they oppose us because our modernness, but is quite the opposite  
• When we end up in such country, terrorism expands and we create more people to attack us

Chapter 7

• Nixon and wiretapping 
• It was a big deal during such times and now almost the same thing happen during the George W. Bush administration
• The Bush Administration was accused of wiretapping, but we actually ignore it 
• Technology is used by politicians to gain more voters 
• If politicians had access to private corporations data from individuals, then they can campaign in a certain area to gain more votes
• Why is technology wrong to be used by politicians? What about us monitoring?
• They are given us (allowing) a certain limited right to monitor certain things, but not everything
• We don't know what politicians are really doing, we know a few things but not everything
• We can do some surveillance over a community, but we don't have control over it

Live!!! March 24 class

WE'RE GOING INSANE NOW!!!! Well, many of us just read Dean's blog realizing that she (you) won't be here. Everyone is here and no absence at all. But 10 minutes after, we're about to start discussing the two chapters for today.

Part 2 iSpy

 This is still part of the discussion of the first two chapters of iSpy. Our class discussion yesterday brought an interesting point from Andrejevic on how interactivity actually doesn’t mean democratization because we are still stuck with the whole notion and promise that technology will address all the basic human needs (pg 9). Interactivity becomes part of a new type of a digital capitalism that leads to free labor. Why is free labor necessary for the new type of capitalism? Well, competition is still a big deal; however, the system of competition will shift from individualism to more to the mass.  The mass or the consumers are the ones that can shape the future of a company. This has always being the case, but now the consumer has the chance to participate more in shaping the marketing system.

Why interaction is not democratization? The false belief of technology being the hope of the future is bogus to some extent; however, the reason for this is because what controls us is not only what technology has become, but who is controlling it: marketers and state institutions.  Today, our privacy is being used for profit by some marketers. If a person logs in to a webpage and wants to know the information about a certain individual, a company might have all the results from where you live to all the things that you like.  I put myself in such line as well, but as one of the almost two billion users who have internet access, we are the ones creating this new age.  The interaction between us (users) and computers is that we are invited to participate in such a digital world where it leads many (without realizing) to be exploited or in other terms as described in class, we are creating our own jails while enjoying it at the same time.

I don’t have anything to hide; therefore, I have nothing to fear if everything is known about me.  But, there’s always that “but,” we need to create a line between our “real” life and our “digital” life.  According to Andrejevic, our embracement to our digital form of life continues to expand. I guess it should be time for many of us to embrace it as well, including myself.   As Americans, our short-term oriented society is only focused on how the past actions will affect our present decisions.  Technology has come to the moment where it has changed our economy and our government.

In terms of government surveillance, I’m not afraid of the government to extend their power in order to maintain this nation safe.  Nevertheless, Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to give up their liberty for security deserve neither and will be able to lose both.  It is not that our digital era doesn’t give us freedom, but every century, the meaning of the word freedom should be interpreted differently.  The freedom of speech? It has well change during the last two decades. Over the last few months, we have seen how the webpage Wikileaks is actually trying to do with such freedom. This has caused the government to react to the point where we start thinking that the threat can come from within the own government.   The Patriot Act is a perfect example on the necessary actions the government is taking for “national security.” 

The author points out how there needs to be a line between the state and marketing.  Such line has being crossed by the government several times for national security reasons. If someone decides to buy a bunch of unknown powder from some unknown store, the government takes action thinking that such person will use it to create bombs.  Marketers have our information and begin to share it with the government in order to look for suspects.  Even though I wrote about having nothing to hide, the U.S Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects American citizens from unreasonable search and seizures.  Over the last decade, this line has being crossed many times.  Is it time to begin interpreting or change the Supreme Law of the land? 

Part 1 iSpy

             Have we lost control on how information is shared? Into some extent we have become part of a digital and interactive culture that has expanded to the point of even calling our 21^st century the Information Era.  Our 21^st century has changed how information is shared between a regular citizen, the private industry and state institutions.  Privacy becomes extinct for some since it is known that marketers gather so much information about an individual than such person would have expected.  This information is gathered without our consent because we have opened our networks to these marketing companies to do it in a blink of an eye.  Google, the perfect example given in the reading gathers information of a person by locating where an individual is and advertising local stores.

               This has become a problem of the 21^st century. The entire belief of privacy disappears when we start interacting with such network.  This becomes an exception when the state takes action. For example, the Patriot Act gives the government authority to use surveillance in order to gather information about individuals to protect our nation or in other words for national security.  In terms of national security, the more information is gathered, the more protected our country is.  However, to maintain our nation safe, many privacy rights had to be violated.  Cell phone companies giving information to the government about certain individuals.

               The power that persists today over individuals from state institutions and marketers has caused a new change of our lives.  People begin to ignore how necessary their privacy is and begin to share it with everyone.  Social network sites can tell everyone where someone is by just pressing one button.  If I decide to open my browser and log in to my Yahoo page, it can tell me where I’m located and it immediately gives me local news with some advertisements.  My cell phone, if the map app is open it can tell me the exact location.  We’re not changing technology, technology is changing us.  We have become more ignorant over the last decade in terms of privacy.  Nevertheless, the issue of privacy has become something we have lost control of.  Now our lives belong to marketers and the government.   

The reason it has taken me so long to blog

Well, there are few reasons why it has taken me so long to update my blog. First, I need to read over and over every chapter to actually be able to understand Terranova’s arguments. I know that in class we have gone through the chapters, but sometimes I feel like there are things missing. Following this post I will be able to post my responses to every chapter from her arguments and ideas of information and noise, economics, to her philosophical ideas on artificial intelligence and biological computing.  I already have my ideas organized for the chapters, but the only thing I need to do is post them on this blog.  

How Revolutions Begin

Power Laws, Weblogs, Inequality response

Why freedom and diversity equals inequality? Isn’t equality what we’re trying to fight for and push in this nation and worldwide? Let’s remember that there are different types of inequality. The inequality we’re discussing on this article is based on the popularity contest of blogs; who can get the most followers which in other words is the winner-take-all system. This system discussed in the article is not only based on those competing to be the best, but is also discussing how the winners are those that influence others to become part of the competition.

               The article describes that even though blogging has made people to become part of the news media, it also describes how popularity is necessary to be read and approved by those who read it.  There are millions of blogs, but the extension of these blogs and the freedom to write anything you want is the lead to creating inequality. The inequality is that not every person’s blog is read because of the expanding world of blogging.  The 80/20 rule applies to blogging as well.  The article gave an example how 20% of the world’s population holds 80% of the wealth.  Then this means that 20% of the blogs hold at least 80% of the readers. The 20% are those who have been blogging for years, maybe those who were part of the “firsts.” These bloggers then lead to other blogs to be read. Sometimes bloggers share a connection to extend their popularity. Almost 5 years ago I created a blog as part of a high school project. It was only read between my classmates then I decided to delete it for reasons that it was unnecessary for me to have one.

               The power law graph can show how those who are on the top are there because of their popularity.  These are blogs that people enjoy reading each morning and some have been announced on big news corporation. Those blogs that are announced by big corporations receive the most readers. Overall, blogs have been around for years, and millions of new readers are added daily. Competition will always be around. Competition is part of the freedom and diversity that brings inequality. 

Lanier part 4-5

What makes us humans? It is not just our physical body, but our conscious, the way we think, we feel and most importantly the freedom of choice.  The evolution of humans dates back to thousands of years, according to scientists. However, are we the only ones to be considered humans or beings? Descartes proposed a new idea of what it is considered to be humans: “I think therefore I am.” It is the process of us thinking independently without relying on the ideas of others. It is our experiences that shape us and how we tend to interpret them.  

               Computer scientists, according to Lanier, argue that computers might be able in the near future to have the basic treatments as humans. Lanier rejects such argument.  What makes us humans is our conscious. Computer scientists believe that a computer might be able to adapt such quality like a person. However, creating a super-being does not mean that we’re creating a being that is equally to a human. We’re creating a being that it only understands that it’s given or uploaded to its hard drive.  This is when the idea of the Turing test comes to practice.  How can we distinguish a person from a computer?  While going through certain webpages, sometimes there is the CAPTCHA test. This test is to prove whether a person is the one accessing the web page or a computer.  This leads to the loss of trust humans have created.  The lack of trust has being increased because certain computers are making choices provided by its creator.  They are not making it by their own, but the way they were program to do it.  Humans, on the other hand, we have the freedom of choice. I can choose whether or not I want to eat the apple that I’m holding.

  This is not the only problem we’re having with modern technology. As humans, we are losing our identity to such technological advancement. We have lost touch with the real world and have become subjects of an artificial world created by computers.  This idea of computationalism discussed by Lanier is that humans are not just information systems. We are not just a web 2.0 program designed to do certain tasks or hold all the information given to us. We are known to be creative; creative in a specific way that a computer won’t be able to understand the differences between reality and programs. Yet, Lanier recognizes that computers have started to understand patterns and create its set of new language within its own system.

               How does this entire can connect to philosophy? It is all by understanding the division that exists between humans and computers. Are machines capable enough to think, understand or be conscious?   The ability to have intelligence is more than just the input and output that processes in the mind.  Descartes explained that the sign of intelligence is the ability to understand language. Descartes’ “sign of intelligence” is not sufficient to actually mark a machine as intelligent. Machines are only capable of imitating certain human behaviors and their intelligence is limited.  Machines are somewhat intelligent when they have are programmed; if not, then they are just like any other object.  In class we discussed how Lanier might disagree with films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and I, Robot.  There is also another novel called Galatea 2.2 that illustrates how a computer created by a computer scientist was able to interact with a person. . Both computers from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey and the book Galatea 2.2 are great examples of computers that have access to communicate with people, yet they lack their “own” intelligence.  However, computers’ communication is genuinely two-way.  This means that when computers do not understand when humans talk to them; it just takes human’s words as input and then, according to its program, produces certain sounds as output. A computer has a syntax but not semantics.

               Finally, humans can identify who they are: self-identity.  Computers are not self-aware; they don’t know who they are and where they come from.  Lanier values more the characteristics of humans and our qualities. But there is the idea that quantity equals quality in software and the reason for this is the amount of time scientists spend creating the perfect computer. Then this will bring the idea of computers not making mistakes of their own because their program won’t allow them to.

Lanier Part 2-3

 While discussing part 2 and 3 of Lanier’s book in class I realized that many people are worried that the whole reason of the internet having so much freedom is based on two options: democracy and freedom.  Democracy, not in terms of government free countries, but in terms of approaching freedom, well, it has created this new culture where is all about competition.  Yes, everyone has their freedom to do anything they want, but because of file sharing and advertisements, the ones who benefit the most are the ones who invest the most in promoting their products or music.  Lanier explains that “only a tiny minority” can benefit from the advancement of technology.

               On this open economy, what else do we expect? It always has been about competition and musicians know this as well. No matter if technology advances faster than a blink of an eye, musicians have competed to be at the top of everything.  Technology can change this, but it is creating a new type of competition. It is not the same type of competition as compared to The Beatles time and the boom of radio, but this time is a time to reach those billions of internet users. There are thousands of musicians, but now all of them can’t be famous and rich.  That’s the whole concept behind capitalism. If you can’t make it to the top, then inequality will follow. The ideal of competition is to let those who are the best in something be recognized for their work.

               However, this is not only targeted at the music industry. It is targeted at businesses, normal citizens, governments, and much more. Lanier describes how China is becoming a big competition because of their cheap “high-quality” labor. Then we have India for their “nonroutine” economy. Their vast majority of English speakers has become the “world’s call centers.” This means that if I call Dell to fix my laptop, I will be talking to an Indian guy who knows nothing about the company’s policies on their products (I’m writing this because it actually happened before).  Our nation has decided to take a different path: to be the center of holding everything there is to know about the internet. This is from holding the world’s largest economy to being the world’s police. 

               We have created this digital economy, according to Lanier, that it could help many to benefit from it.  There is a part of the digital economy section where Lanier contradicts himself. He tends to agree with the idea made by Ted Nelson where everyone benefits from a capitalist internet or in other words a universal system.  There will be challenges for this system to work, government interruption and businesses restrictions. The new digital culture of the internet does not violate however the rules of capitalism. It opens a new set of rules where sometimes creativity can disappear as well.  An example is a singer that has a song similar to a previous one.  The new set of rules that could be seen is that everyone feels perfectly fine if this happens, but it leads to people being less creative. It leads to a capitalism will just be going in circles and it could destroy itself. 

You Are Not A Gadget - Jaron Lanier (part 1-2 response)

The term “lock-in” used by Jaron Lanier is not based on how much we have become addicted to the use of the internet.  The term “lock-in” is more or less defining how the internet has become part of our lives that instead of us consciously making decisions, the internet or software is making it for us.  The open culture described is more of an interaction between humans and computers.  It is the freedom of communication and of a new type of culture that could only be found if there is an interaction between a “user” and a “program” (internet). Such program is what allows us to communicate with others around the globe. The interaction of a program and a human is becoming more realistic much faster than expected by computer scientists.  Over time we are giving computers human ideas in order to have a better connection with it.  The internet is becoming into a superhuman that’s is going to be evolving thanks to the effort of millions of users.

               Furthermore, this interaction between a human (user) and a machine (software) becomes a psychological and philosophical topic where we start questioning whether a human becomes part of the software too.  This new culture we have created is based on the reliance humans have on the internet to solve many of their problems.  Such as students saying “maybe if I Google this I could find how to do it.” It is an extension of our memory as described by Lanier by which is not only based on what we personally think on a topic but what everyone else around thinks about it.

               Jaron Lanier is one of the founders of “virtual reality” which is used today as a way to look at a world on a different (software) perspective.  It is an extension of what and how we see things. It is based on manipulating our experiences based on our senses.  The web has become this virtual reality that has changed the identity of millions. We have become these cybernetic patterns that is helping us to understand a type of a computer reality beyond our senses. 

Reflection on some of the articles

  After reading through the class articles from “After the Dotcom Crash” to “Past and Future History of the Internet,” I have to admit that technology and the internet itself is a changing pattern that not only affects a certain group of people but it can also affect businesses and can change the actions of governments.

               The capitalist internet: “After the Dotcom Crash” article explains how the early internet investors were greedy businessmen that only cared about profits. They didn’t care about the rules (if there were any) and lost touch with reality.  However, what we tend to ignore is that this is a cycle. In a capitalist nation, businessmen tend to become greedy when they see a new innovation that could change the way business is handle. This happened during the Industrialization Revolution during the 18^th and 19^th century. Monopoly was seen everywhere in the United States during such period of time: from steel companies to the textile industry.  During such time, they were unstoppable until the government was able to take action.  Today, this is what we’re seeing through the internet. Is it something too big to stop?  The internet is not control by one major player. The internet is everywhere and depending where you are, the internet might be control by multiple parties.  After being publicly introduced, the creators and major internet computer scientists lost the battle against new-comers.  Such progress has not only expanded our economy, but many have lost.  It is still a competition between companies on who can attract the most.   Companies will keep investing on new technological revolutions even though it has been proven that is a risk.  Companies have changed their business patterns and have to become part of the new technological evolution.  Those who don’t accept to be part of will be left behind.  Society will keep changing and our culture as well.  From the Enlightenment Era to the Information Era we’re living at this moment we are becoming part of the changes of improving and sharing our knowledge as never seen before.

               The “History of the Internet and its Flexible Future” provides an insightful thought as to where our society is heading because of the internet. It is not only based on the history of the internet, but how we as the users have shaped it and will keep shaping it. It has being a source of communication through emails, video conferences easy and faster information sharing and above all making a worldwide connection to everyone and everything. The creation of wireless or radio wave signals has also brought a sense of a development that has brought many to think where we’re heading next.  A vision of the flexible future is more than just the connection between man and computer, it is also a connection between our society as a whole and the effects the internet is having in our lives.  It is something as described in the article that is just part of a bigger beginning.

               The psychology we find behind the mass (users) and the internet is controlled by individuals that want to be part of something bigger. It is more of a silent mass that is behind computers that want to let political parties and corporations know that even though physically they can’t be involve or can’t be part of their organization they can do it through the new internet mass.  They can create their own visual world in a click of a mouse, but now we are also seeing the internet is “governed by big telecoms, entertainment conglomerates and state, which will try to control and regulate access and content,” as described in the “Mass psychology of internet” article.  The internet’s main purpose began with the military and universities and now it belongs to everyone.

               The internet will keep growing and as Geert Lovink described on his article, the internet is becoming a competition between businesses. These businesses can have an effect our lives through their websites or links on social networks such as facebook. An example of the increase of advertisements can be found on smartphone applications. These applications are loaded with more advertisements than you could find on a newspaper.  The user sometimes does not have control over this.  However, this is the sense that we get when we describe a more globalized and connected world.  We can’t expect our privacy to stay private forever. Great inventions have been created to maintain such dream of connectivity and sharing true. From radio waves to smartphones and computers, anything could be possible.  The psychological effect of such innovations is that we want to create a digital visual world that leads us to ignore what really is happening on the real world.  

2nd Day of class - Presentations

Presentations were great first of all, but nothing is perfect. I will admit that even my group had its imperfections or mistakes that we might have forgotten to include on the presentation or more information was needed in certain situations.  The first thing that I realized is that the second day of class demonstrated where the class is heading during the semester in terms of group work and learning much more than we could imagine; this is what happened on the second day of class. Even though we lost more than half of the class, those who were left managed to do a great job on their presentations. Further below is my opinion and critiques of the strength and weaknesses of the presentations:
Group 1- Good PowerPoint presentation. The design was not a great one but good enough to have a normal class presentation. A PowerPoint presentation is based on how much information is given to the people with a few bullet points. I'll admit, I did learned a lot from this presentation. From knowing about the main reason why computer scientists intended to create the internet to how the commercialization of it in 1995 changed the interaction between people on a global scale. However, I just think that too much was written on presentation and because of it, it was hard to catch up with the presenters and reading everything at the same time. The font was too dark to read because of the theme, but everything else was great even as going far to predict the future of the internet. It was great to see how social networks have a mass amount of users that could make up a nation.
Group 2 - I was not expecting someone to create a video for their presentation, but this group went beyond everything else. The video not only presented the history of the internet, but how the internet is just more than what we see online.  For example, the narrator pointed out how the internet has become this competition for businesses leading for many companies to take control of what is given to people. There was only one small problem to the video, I know it was a group work but it would have been better if the narration could have been done by all the members. Focusing on Youtube and other social networks was a great point to talk about. What I like the most was the last minute when the video was showing how future technology will be on the palms of our hands. This means that communication over the internet will be closer than ever.
Group 3 - As previously stated on the introduction, I know our group could have done better. It was something new that we were testing. After testing the website for a while we decided to try it out in our class for our presentation.  In my opinion, more information was needed in certain circumstances such as the Supreme Court cases. I think that I needed to explain more how the cases evolved and what was the final decision made by the courts.
Group 4 - Their presentation brought a broader perspective on the history of the internet. They weren't specific on one thing only, but the internet overall.  The most important part of the presentation was pointing out who created the first computer on the 1800s and thanks to such person (Charles Babbage) today we have such great innovation of the computer.

Overall, second day of class but a great start. Hope we continue learning more from the readings and from class discussions.