Authority on the internet is an interesting concept. I quite like the idea that anyone can be an author, even me! However, I also find that somewhat scary as that means some of the information available on the net is not necessarily true. Erika's wikipedia example is a good one. I don't think this will prevent me using information on the internet, but it will make me more careful about checking the source it has come from. I think the changes in authority on the internet are expected and as technology progresses we may find that the hierarchy continues to flatten. Its good for everyone to have a voice on the internet, it would be boring if all we could access was information that had been filtered and put out by an authority such as the government (like China for example). Information should be free to all. Of course it would make things easier if it was accurate, but lets be honest if we want freedom, we won't be able to have total accuracy. we cannot have our cake and eat it too, (although that would be nice)! I personally like wikipedia, but I only ever use it as a starting point or to clarify something, never as an authoritative source. This is because I have been warned numerous times that I shouldn't rely on it for accuracy, but how many other seemingly accurate sources are out there that we haven't been warned about and rely on???
That's the problem with the internet, there's so much information out there it makes it hard to be sure what is accurate and what's not.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Virtual communities, online identity and ties
I do confess that I found the readings quite hard going this week. Not because the subject matter they contained was difficult, but because there was a lot of content to get through. Virtual communities are an interesting concept. People can join a social network and exchange social capital without ever meeting those they are associating with. I think its interesting that anyone can join one of these communites and engage with people who share similiar interests. Its astounding to think about just how big these communities could get. However, they are self limiting, as Erika said in class people can only maintain a certain number of relationships before they just cannot spread their social capital any further. I think that virtual communities will become very important in the future as more and more people spend greater amounts of time in front of computers.
The idea that we can create a different identity online is an enticing concept. I like the idea that I can take on a new persona, but I am also aware that to be someone completely different is a difficult thing to achieve as we always put part of our true selves into our online identities, whether we intend to or not. Communication through language only can make interaction more challenging in some respects as it is not possible to read people's body language and facial expressions, which means many social cues aren't communicated. I guess emoticons and web cams combat this to some extent, but I don't think they can replace face to face interaction.
I think Wellman's idea of bonding and bridging ties is an accurate description of the different social bonds we form with people. I guess its not possible to have strong bonds with all the people you know, it would certainly leave you quite exhausted.
The idea that we can create a different identity online is an enticing concept. I like the idea that I can take on a new persona, but I am also aware that to be someone completely different is a difficult thing to achieve as we always put part of our true selves into our online identities, whether we intend to or not. Communication through language only can make interaction more challenging in some respects as it is not possible to read people's body language and facial expressions, which means many social cues aren't communicated. I guess emoticons and web cams combat this to some extent, but I don't think they can replace face to face interaction.
I think Wellman's idea of bonding and bridging ties is an accurate description of the different social bonds we form with people. I guess its not possible to have strong bonds with all the people you know, it would certainly leave you quite exhausted.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Week 3
Hey all,
Thank you very much to those who read my blog and to those who posted a comment. I think this whole cybersociety thing is really working well. I found this weeks readings quite interesting, they certainly changed my idea of what a hacker is. I always thought they were the stereotypical isolated, reclusive person who spent all day and night in front of their computer screen trying to 'break' into official websites (govt, big corps) to try to take control over their systems and steal data. How wrong I was, I guess I have the media (hollywood movies etc) to thank for cultivating that perception. Although, I guess that 'hacktivists' do actually do that sort of thing to an extent. But they do it in a form of peaceful political protest, in essence no different from the organised non-violent protest marches you see around the world, and they don't steal data. I have to say I agree with and like some of the original hacker ethics. Information should be freely available to everyone and whilst I think it is necessary to have some kind of authority to keep some sort of order in society (it would be total chaos otherwise), I do think that information is too centralised and much of it is 'privileged'. Not in the confidential sense, but in the sense that only some people are privileged enough to have access to it (govt agencies and officials etc). I agree with Douglas Thomas that hacking hasn't changed much, hackers are still accessing systems, the difference now is that they are 'black hats' accessing systems for personal gain rather than in the quest to discover and create. I guess that this shift was somewhat inevitable, with all the information people share about themselves online these days, someone was bound to take advantage of it and use it for a less than honest purpose. I'm sure that like everything though, where there is bad there is also good and out there somewhere there will be 'white hat' hackers using their skills for the good of everyone.
In relation to the concept of 'cyberterrorism' I think it is a genuine threat. With so many people using the internet around the world there is bound to be some form of terrorist activity. It could occur when the boundaries of hacktivism are pushed and taken a step too far thereby harming the life of people or persons or severely affecting a country's infrastructure. I like the idea of hacktivism as I think it is important that everyone has a voice and has the right to express their opinions. But where do you draw the line? and how long before it becomes blurred?
The internet's global reach provides an ideal forum for potential terrorist acts, and although there is surveillance by govts and large corporations, something is bound to slip through the net. Scary, scary thoughts...
Kat
Thank you very much to those who read my blog and to those who posted a comment. I think this whole cybersociety thing is really working well. I found this weeks readings quite interesting, they certainly changed my idea of what a hacker is. I always thought they were the stereotypical isolated, reclusive person who spent all day and night in front of their computer screen trying to 'break' into official websites (govt, big corps) to try to take control over their systems and steal data. How wrong I was, I guess I have the media (hollywood movies etc) to thank for cultivating that perception. Although, I guess that 'hacktivists' do actually do that sort of thing to an extent. But they do it in a form of peaceful political protest, in essence no different from the organised non-violent protest marches you see around the world, and they don't steal data. I have to say I agree with and like some of the original hacker ethics. Information should be freely available to everyone and whilst I think it is necessary to have some kind of authority to keep some sort of order in society (it would be total chaos otherwise), I do think that information is too centralised and much of it is 'privileged'. Not in the confidential sense, but in the sense that only some people are privileged enough to have access to it (govt agencies and officials etc). I agree with Douglas Thomas that hacking hasn't changed much, hackers are still accessing systems, the difference now is that they are 'black hats' accessing systems for personal gain rather than in the quest to discover and create. I guess that this shift was somewhat inevitable, with all the information people share about themselves online these days, someone was bound to take advantage of it and use it for a less than honest purpose. I'm sure that like everything though, where there is bad there is also good and out there somewhere there will be 'white hat' hackers using their skills for the good of everyone.
In relation to the concept of 'cyberterrorism' I think it is a genuine threat. With so many people using the internet around the world there is bound to be some form of terrorist activity. It could occur when the boundaries of hacktivism are pushed and taken a step too far thereby harming the life of people or persons or severely affecting a country's infrastructure. I like the idea of hacktivism as I think it is important that everyone has a voice and has the right to express their opinions. But where do you draw the line? and how long before it becomes blurred?
The internet's global reach provides an ideal forum for potential terrorist acts, and although there is surveillance by govts and large corporations, something is bound to slip through the net. Scary, scary thoughts...
Kat
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Week 2
I have to confess that when I heard the name of this paper 'cybersocieties', I was somewhat skeptical as to whether I would enjoy this paper, as I am not the most technologically advanced person and have never been too interested in spending lots of time in front of a computer screen. However, my initial reservations have disappeared. So far I have found this paper interesting and have come to realise that I do in fact rely on the internet more than I thought. This was bought to light by the fact that I had to go without internet at home and thus the easily accessible wonders of email and internet banking for the first week and a half of the uni year (really not a long time, but it felt like ages), as our flat had not yet set our connection up (yes, I did use the computers around uni). Once the internet arrived I realised I actually spend a decent amount of time on the internet, it is a surprisingly good procrastination tool.
I thought that Ian Miles' article put forward an interesting idea of what the future could possibly hold, especially in the boxes entitled 'Changing Times'. I thought that they showed clearly just how important technology is becoming in our everyday lives and the reliance we have begun to place upon it. If you think about it, we use/rely on technology for almost everything in our day to day lives, I know I cannot imagine living without a cellphone or a computer. I particularly liked the 'Early 2020's' box, it would be amazing to be given the run-down of every area you went through, although I can imagine it would get somewhat tiresome and the idea of 'sonic beams' is kind of creepy.
David M. Berry's article had some interesting ideas surrounding internet research and the various ethical considerations that arise. I don't think I like the idea of 'lurkers' or 'harvesters', although I guess we all 'lurk' to a certain degree by reading comments on other peoples blogs, bebo's and facebooks etc, but not actually contributing anything ourselves. He talks about intellectual freedom and the free exchange of scientific and academic knowledge. However, with the advent of the technological age more personal information is being shared and, people's privacy is becoming increasingly threatened. Although this is to an extent their own fault as people voluntarily post info about themselves on sites such as facebook. Generally, I think that information should be freely avaliable and that people should be able to choose how much or how little they share about themselves. Although, they do not always have a choice. Consent is an important aspect of any research project, but as Berry says "with the decentralised nature of the internet...seeking consent is extremely difficult". I wonder whether this problem will be solved in the future or whether it will in fact get worse. The issues surrounding the internet are certainly complex.
I'm looking forward to exploring the concept of cybersocities further during this course , as I think that these types of networks and communities will become more and more important and prevalent in the future.
Ok, post over...
See you in class
Kat
I thought that Ian Miles' article put forward an interesting idea of what the future could possibly hold, especially in the boxes entitled 'Changing Times'. I thought that they showed clearly just how important technology is becoming in our everyday lives and the reliance we have begun to place upon it. If you think about it, we use/rely on technology for almost everything in our day to day lives, I know I cannot imagine living without a cellphone or a computer. I particularly liked the 'Early 2020's' box, it would be amazing to be given the run-down of every area you went through, although I can imagine it would get somewhat tiresome and the idea of 'sonic beams' is kind of creepy.
David M. Berry's article had some interesting ideas surrounding internet research and the various ethical considerations that arise. I don't think I like the idea of 'lurkers' or 'harvesters', although I guess we all 'lurk' to a certain degree by reading comments on other peoples blogs, bebo's and facebooks etc, but not actually contributing anything ourselves. He talks about intellectual freedom and the free exchange of scientific and academic knowledge. However, with the advent of the technological age more personal information is being shared and, people's privacy is becoming increasingly threatened. Although this is to an extent their own fault as people voluntarily post info about themselves on sites such as facebook. Generally, I think that information should be freely avaliable and that people should be able to choose how much or how little they share about themselves. Although, they do not always have a choice. Consent is an important aspect of any research project, but as Berry says "with the decentralised nature of the internet...seeking consent is extremely difficult". I wonder whether this problem will be solved in the future or whether it will in fact get worse. The issues surrounding the internet are certainly complex.
I'm looking forward to exploring the concept of cybersocities further during this course , as I think that these types of networks and communities will become more and more important and prevalent in the future.
Ok, post over...
See you in class
Kat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)