Real World Vs. Cyberspace

April 27, 2011 at 2:45 pm (Class Post, EMAC 6361, Government, Internet, Technology)

It has become increasingly clear to me through the course of both this class and my current project that there is very clear tension between opinions on the real world vs. cyberspace. The fact that we continue to make this distinction is even a matter of contention for some. The heart of the matter is that as the Internet becomes more and more integrated into our lives, the blurrier the line between cyberspace and the real world becomes.

Lawrence Lessig discusses this tension and the questions that arise and consequences that could occur because of it in his book Code 2.0. He notes that we want (at least now) cyberspace to be like the real world; however, it’s becoming clearer that this is a limit that may soon become nonexistent. In the real world, we abide (or not) by social norms, physical laws placed  on us because of the nature of being human or because of the government regulations respective of our geographical location. Most of us behave a certain way (or at least viewed that we should act a certain way) because of these laws that we have very little control over or will take a great deal of time and effort to change.

In cyberspace, however, it is a new enough world, so to speak, that none of these laws that we have in the physical world can be in place or be as effective if we do try to enact them. In cyberspace, “the law is the code” by which that particular space has been organized. Unlike the months it takes Congress to develop or change a policy, if there is something in cyberspace that needs to be changed, it only takes an instant to change the code, or that law. But, Lessig points out that this ease in changing code could lead to other problems with those that interact inside cyberspace, not just with those that are in the real world that want to control/regulate cyberspace.

Lessig illustrates this with a story about how two “neighbors” in an online world had a conflict (one that could just as easily come up in the real world) and how both brought up solutions to their conflict that involved changing the laws (code) as they existed at that moment:

Problems can be programmed or “coded” into the story, and they can be “coded” away. And while the experience with gamers so far is that they don’t want virtual worlds to deviate too far from the real, the important point for now is that there is the capacity to make these worlds different. It is this capacity that raises the question that is at the core of this book: What does it mean to live in a world where problems can be coded away? And when, in that world, should we code problems away, rather than learn to work them out, or punish those who cause them? (p. 15)

This is a point that Carl Sunstein made, which I discussed on my blog last week, about how we are not being forced to confront things online like we would have to in the real world. If we can just as easily “code away” our problems, rather than work them out or punish the “troublemakers,” how does that then translate how we behave in the real world, if we continue to make this distinction.

In the second story that Lessig brings up, he mentions how difficult it is to regulate cyberspace using the tools we normal have in the real world. He mentions that a very popular author, Jake, of rather disturbing stories published online was arrested and tried in the real world because of them:

It is impossibly difficult to look across the range of Jake-like characters and not think that, at some point, the virtual has crossed over into something real. Or, at least, the virtual has real effects–either on those who live it, or on those who live with them…. The Net enables lives that were previously impossible, or inconvenient, or uncommon. At least some of those virtual lives will have effects on non-virtual lives–both the lives of the people living in the virtual space, and the lives of those around them (p. 20).

So while at the moment we continue to make the distinction between your online and offline self, it is clear that both still effect each other and those around you. And with the growing popularity of social media, your online and offline self are quickly becoming one and the same, and even multiple versions of them. But however you live your life, either in the real world or in cyberspace, it will still effect you in both and effect others around you in both. We’ve heard plenty of stories about how relationships that were only online quickly turned to offline relationships or  how infidelity in a video game caused a real world divorce.

It is evident that “real world vs. cyberspace” is really becoming more like “real world = cyberspace”, with a fluid movement between the two that becomes a whole other world that is different from how we view our “real world.” We are just beginning to reconcile between the two, and we still have much time, discussion, experimentation, and thoughts regarding it and how (or if) we should behave and be controlled in cyberspace and how to change it.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Personalization is Bad?

April 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm (Class Post, Clicktivism, EMAC 6361, Government, Internet, Media, Technology)

When you log on to the Internet, where do you go? Since you are reading my blog, I’ll assume that you do get on at least occasionally to fairly regularly. Besides my awesome blog (*shameless self-promotion*), what other sites do you go to? How long do you spend on those sites?

If you are a frequenter of cyberspace, I’m guessing you check your email, which might lead you to other links of funny videos, news reports, etc. Then, maybe you go on Facebook or Twitter, or your other favorite social media outlet of choice, and from there you might also be led to more funny videos, news articles, links to other sites, etc. shared with you by your friends. Perhaps you have several favorite blogs or YouTube channels that you catch up on that discuss things that interest you, which again might lead you to other places in the World Wide Web that you might like. Maybe you have to do some online shopping, so you get on Amazon.com or your search engine of choice to do a search for the particular item you are looking for, and most often (and especially on Amazon) you’ll find your item and others like it along with other items people like you also purchased with that item.

As creatures of habit, many of us have a routine that we follow when we log online. For me, I log on to MSN.com, browse through their main slideshow of random news topics, headlines, and interest pieces (if anything interests me, I open it in another tab to read later), log in to Hotmail to check my email (deleting, responding, and opening links in new tabs as necessary), go to Google to log in and check my Gmail (again deleting, responding, and opening links), and then I go to Facebook and Tumblr (browsing and commenting etc.), read all of those tabs I had opened (or glance at if I have since lost interest in reading it), and then back to Google where it is now my own iGoogle page with things I like on it.

My iGoogle page

This is my daily routine when I get online. And as you can tell, most of what I have picked for myself has been things that I like, that I find an interest in, and that apply to me. I have found an increasingly easy ability to personalize my Internet experience, as I’m sure you have found to be true for yourself as well.

However, through the ever increasing personalization of the Internet, we continue to remove ourselves from the majority and create fragmentations in our society—a very dangerous outcome according to Cass R. Sunstein in Republic.com 2.0. In it he describes all of the dangers to freedom and government that can come about if we continue to create niche markets for ourselves. Because in order to maintain a strong democracy we must have the following:

First, people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself…. Second, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a much more difficult time in addressing social problems. (p. 5-6)

If we continue to personalize our communication, we will not be exposed to differing opinions and unanticipated arguments that we need to progress and cause change. Likewise, if we do have common experiences between us, we will not have common ground with which to start a basis for action. Sunstein argues that

When society is fragmented in this way, diverse groups will tend to polarize in a way that can breed extremism and even hatred and violence. New technologies, emphatically including the Internet, are dramatically increasing people’s ability to hear echoes of their own voices and to wall themselves off from others (p. 44).

While we have found this to be true in some cases—that we are echoing our own opinions and beliefs when we continue to only associate with those that are of the same opinions and beliefs and continuing to create extremes (Tea Party, anyone?)—I think Sunstein is all too reluctant to point out that meeting with people of the same opinion is not inherently dangerous and to be avoided (Civil Rights movement, anyone?). I understand he wants to make us aware and cautious of how we use the Internet and the resources there in, but I’m not sure we will ever receive a fully personalized Internet/communication/media experience. I realize I can’t predict the future and I may be having to change my tune, but while we associate with things we like on the Internet, we will always come across unplanned and unanticipated things because (luckily) we are not all the same. While we might have similar views, there are still things we’ll disagree on. AND because we still live on Earth, there are things we’ll still experience together, be it locally, nationally, or globally.

Of course there are risks to government with the Internet (as there are with any new technology and media), but we can still experience what Sunstein is afraid we’ll lose because of it: unplanned encounters and shared experiences. And by finding, through the Internet, those that are of the same opinion, which Sunstein fears might result in an echo chamber that causes nothing but extremism and violence, people can ban together to promote or protest a cause or policy. It is not only through a shared experience but through a shared belief that movements and activism can be brought about. While the dangers exist, I’m not sure we can fully fear them nor fully avoid them, and like Sunstein says “the Internet is hardly an enemy here. It holds out far more promise than risk” (p. 222). How those promises will be realized will depend on us.

While we can continually customize our Internet experience to our preferences, we cannot customize our friends and associations on the Internet to be exactly how we want them to be. Because of that we still have the ability to be confronted with opposing views and unanticipated articles that we can then share and discuss with others, through which freedom and democracy can continue to progress.

Besides, we all know Amazon has some pretty crazy recommendations that we wouldn’t expect:

Permalink 2 Comments

I’ve Been Doubley Delusional

April 6, 2011 at 11:49 am (Class Post, Clicktivism, EMAC 6361, Facebook, Government, Internet, Social Media)

Excuse me a moment, I have to do something.

I’ll admit, I’m feeling mighty foolish at the moment, especially after the reading we did for this week. A few weeks ago I talked about how I was delusional to the fact that I could use my network of friends (and others could do the same) to influence them and other networks to overcome clicktivism and be more service-oriented. In fact, I am (was?) basing my entire project on that main point.

But, after having discussed The Exploit: A Theory of Networks by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker on Monday and after reading The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by Evgeny Morozov I clearly was doubley delusional in that I jumped on the band wagon of Connected far too quickly.

Morozov’s Point

Apparently, according to Morozov, I was being too “cyber-utopian” and idealizing the internet and networks far more than I should have been. He says that:

The idea that the Internet favors the oppressed rather than the oppressor is marred by what I call cyber-utopianism: a naive belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside (p. xiii).

I wouldn’t say that I have refused to acknowledge the dark side of the Internet because if you’ll recall, I myself mused on the fact that the government in Egypt could have used the Internet to trick protesters instead of turning it off completely.

However, Morozov makes a good point. We need to be aware that just like coins, duck tape, and The Force, the Internet has two sides, and when we blatantly ignore one to the praise of the other, we cause more problems than if we had weighed both sides. BUT, I think it goes both ways. While being cyber-utopian and believing that the Internet can solve all evils (“internet-centrism”) and is inherently democratic is one sided, so is going the opposite direction and saying that the Internet actually doesn’t fix anything and we are deluding ourselves by thinking that it does. While I do think that Morozov tries to find a balance between the two in his argument, I get the feeling he’s trying really hard to reject all cyber-utopian ideals more than finding the good in them (probably because he too (like I) had jumped on the bandwagon too quickly.

He admits that in the backlash of realizing that he had been cyber-utopian himself, he was “tempt[ed] to throw [his] hands up in despair and give up on the Internet altogether” (p. xv). But, he then realizes that that too would be wrong:

Rather, the lesson to be drawn is that the Internet is here to stay, it will continue growing in importance, and those concerned with democracy promotion need not only grapple with it but also come up with mechanisms and procedures to ensure that another tragic blunder on the scale of Abu Ghraib will never happen in cyberspace (p. xv).

In this point, he is right. As much as some like to ignore it or think it’s insignificant, the Internet is here and we have to deal with it and its impact to us socially, economically, and politically. Now that we have it and it is continuing to evolve and change how things work, we need to start recognizing how we too might need to change and evolve how we do things as well. And in order to decide, we need to look at it with both perspectives in mind.

Morozov’s Slacktivism

I LOVED that Morozov had an entire chapter on slacktivism in his book. Because not only does it have to do with the topic and project I’m pursuing, but he made some rather valid arguments that either backed up my original thoughts or made me reevaluate others. He discusses an experiment by Colding-Jorgensen in which someone created a Facebook group to protest the destruction of a fountain that was never actually going to get destroyed, and it soon gained over 20,000 members in protest to save the historical fountain. Morozov remarks that there are two ways to look at this experiment. The first being that:

His online friends were likely to share his concern for the preservation of Denmark’s cultural heritage, and since joining the group did not require anything other than clicking a few buttons, [his friends] eagerly lent their names to Colding-Jorgensen’s online campaign. If that request had come from some unknown entity with few historically conscious contacts, or if joining in required performing a number of challenging chores, chances are the success of that crusade would have been far less spectacular (p. 180).

This option would then imply that there would be no reason to pay attention to it because more than likely, nothing will result from having members in a Facebook group because it’s so easy to join said group. But, the other option is:

Another, more optimistic way to assess the growth of activism on social networks is to celebrate the ease and speed with which Facebook groups can grow and go viral. From this perspective, Colding-Jorgensen’s experiment has shown that when communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action…. Proponent s of this view argue that Facebook is to group formation what Red Bull is to productivity (p. 180).

This one would then imply that because of activism on social networks, it makes it easier and faster to create awareness for causes etc. and that would be a valuable resource that one should not ignore. But, with both options, Morozov points out that they are missing the real point. For it’s not important to determine whether or not we should ignore Facebook groups or embrace them as the new form of activism; rather, it’s more important to look at those that make up the group than that the group has high numbers of members. In analyzing both views on the experiment, Morozov remarks that

Neither offers a good account of what membership in such networked causes does to the members themselves…. Nor do these two competing interpretations indicate what kind of effect such online campaigns may have on the effectiveness and popularity of other offline and individual activist efforts…. Before policymakers embrace digital activism as an effective way of pushing against authoritarian governments, they are well-advised to fully investigate its impact both on its practitioners and on the overall tempo of democratization (p. 183).

I think this is the important thing to remember, when it comes to networks and the assumptions about digital activism, and therefore slacktivism. While it is easy to join Facebook groups and donate money to charities, the people that join have their reasons in doing so, and most of them mean well but aren’t sure what else they can do. But, as he points out later, we shouldn’t misjudge quantity for quality, and that’s where we run into the problem of slacktivism and in trying to use Facebook groups and various other sites to create activists.

My Concluding Thoughts

I realize that in order to really understand and analyze ways in which to prevent or at least minimize slacktivism, I have to keep in mind that being connected to others and influencing my network is not the only way or even the right way to help the world become a better place. The Internet cannot solve everything, and the people involved in real life are just as important as the group and their online participation.

I’ll be honest, it’s still in my nature to look on the bright side of Internet freedom (and I’m not sure I can ever change that or would want to), but I recognize that with the light must come dark or else I would not see it as such. Yes it’s true, Twitter wasn’t the only thing that allowed the Iranian or Egyptian revolution to happen, but it sure helped spread the message that it was going on, right? (Which I think is still pretty important to remember.)

Thank goodness the Tom Hanks look-alike, Clay Shirky can back me up on this.

Permalink Leave a Comment