Month: September 2014

x. Internet Policy: Why Bother?

What’s the deal with net neutrality? Why should we pay attention to internet policy? Is this really a civic concern? 

seinfeld_huffpost

The internet is NOT a commodity anymore; but a vital utility. The UN has declared internet access to be a basic human right. You might use the internet as much every day as you drink water and use electricity. In order for democracy to function, there needs to be a platform of free-flowing ideas and information. Consider the Public Sphere concept. The internet is our gateway to open communication – and often, we take that access for granted.

Just the same as we expect clean water and reliable electricity, we should expect the ability to connect to the internet and explore the web. ISPs, or Internet Service Providers (such as Comcast), play the role of gatekeepers. These for-profit companies assume the authority to provide or deny access to the internet. As Reddit user WildGriffinAppeared points out,

It can be argued that they have a moral and civic duty to provide unbiased access to this potential marketplace thus allowing for the potential growth of a healthy positive democracy.

Instead, these companies are fighting for absolute dominion – and are in the business of padding their own wallets, regardless of public opinion. There’s a blatant conflict of interest here. It’s no surprise that these companies are earning the title of “Worst Company in America”, and that horrible customer service experiences are going viral. The sweet irony of the situation is that frustrated consumers are using the very platform these companies provide to express their outrage.

http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-survey-study/

If we really want to take the Public Sphere idea seriously, then shouldn’t the community voice be valuable? The internet as a public sphere is about people getting involved in conversations. It’s about people spreading information. The voice of the online community wields some degree of political power, in that trending ideas and social media can lead to real-world results.

Consider the concept of internet “fast lanes”, proposed by the FCC – the government agency tasked with overseeing communications. The proposed system would impose tiers of speeds, allowing for paid prioritization of content in which ISPs can charge for faster access and loading speeds. Big money is being spent behind the scenes in the battle for internet policy control. We all have a vested interest in shaping the future of the net, and we should steer the conversation in a way that promotes freedom and innovation (and decent Netflix buffering speeds).

John Oliver: 
Net neutrality is actually hugely important. Essentially it means that all data has to be treated equally no matter who created it. It’s why the internet is a weirdly level playing field. The internet – in its current form – is not broken; but the FCC is currently taking steps to fix that.

Alright? Just think about it, ok? Ya. </babble>

3. Rhetoric of Network Communication, (Reddit’s /r/IAmA platform)

Concepts: (1) surveillance (marketing, corporate, …), (2) digital labor (crowdsourcing, customer feedback,  …)

Reddit is a platform that connects millions of users – one of the most successful “subreddits” (or communities) is /r/IAmA, a place where (typically) famous or successful folks show up for Reddit users to ask them questions. For readers, the content of the /r/IAmA thread might simply be entertaining or interesting. But on the opposite end, the AMA serves as a powerful tool for marketing, self-promotion, and gathering user feedback. Market researchers are able to directly interpret customer comments/feedback and promoters are able to pitch their product/generate interest. All of this occurs within the Reddit platform – and can genuinely be a good experience for all parties involved.

To connect this with the reading, (1) surveillance plays a huge role in the /r/IAmA platform. (Doyle & Fraser) ask, are these new forms of surveillance empowering individuals, or are users allowing surveillance to enter their personal space? One could argue in favor of empowerment by merely pointing out that these individuals would likely never have the opportunity to speak to a CEO of a big company – or a famous actor – or a revered politician. But in my opinion, the relationship between posting a comment and receiving a response from a public figure can typically be classified as a novelty experience. These Q&A session rarely yield any responses with lasting impact, and for the most part, controversial questions are simply ignored. And that brings us to the next point …

As /r/IAmA has grown and expanded, more and more high-profile individuals have ventured into the subreddit to host their very own AMA thread. As a platform, Reddit allows these individuals to tap into a trove of (2) digital labor. Users are actively engaging in these Q&A sessions, creating exposure for whatever brand or image is being promoted. When a CEO or spokesperson for a company is the subject, users provide valuable feedback and discuss their consumer experience.

Two years ago, Barack Obama appeared in /r/IAmA; the thread hosts over ten thousand comments, and caused server problems for the entire website from all the traffic. I created a discussion in /r/TheoryOfReddit about the implications of the AMA, and one user points out: “We’re not learning anything new here, and we’re not getting truly personal responses”. So why the AMA? Because generating interest and ‘engaging’ with communities is good political strategy. The very same can be said about why a company executive would do an AMA. To that extent, a lot of threads are nothing more than elaborate PR stunts. There are countless instances of backfired threads, where the marketing or corporate intentions are far-too obvious, or are performed in a dishonest fashion. Whether it’s a company creating shill accounts and answering their own questions, or Woody Harrelson shamelessly promoting Rampart.

/r/IAmA is a great place to visit for the sake of entertainment. But it’s important to keep in mind that there is no guarantee of integrity. Since difficult or controversial questions can be dodged, a lot of the content ends up feeling generic and fluffy. As a platform, it can provide interesting discourse and conversations can genuinely be useful for all parties involved… but that is not necessarily the case.

x. Internet Policy: Social Issue Discussion

Since groups are still up in the air (?), I figure this post can serve as a place to discuss the potential group for Internet Issues.

First of all, Internet Issues is a pretty broad umbrella: what should we focus on? How can we qualify it as a civic / social / community problem?

Perhaps we should be asking: are communities satisfied with their internet service options? Who are our Internet Service Providers (ISPs)? Are we satisfied with them? I don’t think it would be fair for me to make that call, so instead, I turned to Google. Simply typing “comcast boulder” or “comcast denver” into the search bar ought to provide a good starting point.

LINKS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=comcast+boulder || http://lmgtfy.com/?q=comcast+denver 
happycust

Comcast Denver weighs in with an average score of 1.5 (or 1 according to Yelp).
It seems like residents of Denver are dissatisfied with Comcast. But you could have fooled me! Michael Hancock, mayor of Denver, signed a letter to the FCC supporting a merger of Comcast and Time-Warner! Specifically stating that Comcast has “established itself as an industry leader and exemplary community partner“

Source: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/comcast-time-warner-american-mayors/

Somethings not right here. But hey, just figured I’d get the ball rolling. (To be continued …)

  • Net Neutrality, Policy
  • Municipal Fiber vs Internet Service Providers
  • other ideas?

2. Pics Or It Didn’t Happen!

In case you’re unfamiliar with the adage, here’s the Urban Dictionary-supplied definition:
“pics or it didnt happen”:
A phrase used on Internet forums to counter the vast range of unverifiable claims made by users. Often these claims involve personal brag-worthy accomplishments, extraordinary or rare sights/occurrences, and tales relating to alcohol or drug use.

What is testimony in the digital sphere? One of the specific points introduced in Electronic Monuments is that conditions have changed. In the age of the Internet, media conditions give anyone with a computer and a network connection a voice. Everyone has the ability to be a witness, and anyone is allowed to offer testimony – regardless of qualifications, context, or credentials! How are stories legitimized? What does it take to earn another user’s trust?

“Don’t believe everything you see on TV!” evolved into “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet!”

Let’s be logical about this: the most significant way to validate a story is through evidence. People love to tell tall tales about crazy ex-girlfriends, or horrible managers, or that one party that was off the hook (and you totally missed out) – but it’s easy for any narrator to get caught up in the moment, or go off on a tangent, or indulge in over-exaggeration.
What’s worse is that the more unbelievable a story gets, the more impressive it would be if true! But, accepting an unbelievable story (at face value, or from one perspective) would be naive.

Legitimate testimony ought to be backed by proof. Supported by facts, or well-documented: most of us have this technology at our fingertips. Our phones are well-equipped to document unbelievable events and capture pictures, video, and/or audio!

Last winter I had an altercation which I had a hunch would escalate. I got knocked off my bike by a driver who “always blows this stop sign” at a crosswalk. I decided to record the conversation that followed. I asked for an apology – but he was furious. He admitted (on record) that he blew the stop sign, and always blows the stop sign – but that he wouldn’t apologize. Because how could I force that out of him? He told me: “Prove it to a cop! I’ll say I have no idea what you’re talking about”. So I did.