To The Front, To The Back

In his article “Between Democracy and Spectacle: The Front-End and Back-End of the Social Web,” Felix Stalder analyzes the unique differences between the “front-end,” user dominated side of the Web, and the “back-end,” owner dominated side, the back-stage area. The front-end is the side that the average user is most familiar with: user interfaces, social media profiles, the front page of your favorite blog. The back-end, however, has even more to do with the way the Web functions in our social lives. This is where what we see on our various screens is controlled, manipulated the authors, owners, and corporations behind almost everything we view online in an average day. Stadler argues that with the strength of the vast number of individuals contributing to the front-side of the web, the “organizations” at the helm in the back-end should not be in any more control of the web than the front-end users. This, however, as he points out, is just to good to be true with the current structure of Web 2.0 at large. There is simply too much money at stake, at least for now. Citing a quote from Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody,” “we are used to a world where little things happen for love, and big things happen for money…. Now, though, we can do big things for love.” While that was sound a bit utopian given a Web structure that currently aligns more with the back-end of things, the individuals at the front have been working towards such a goal for some time now. Resources like Wikipedia, various crowd-funding websites and services, and the myriad of personal, not-for profit blogs that thousands of users read and contribute to every day, are making it clear that we, the common users, do want to big things for love; for the love of communication, community, and the advancement of knowledge and creativity. As the two competing sides of the Web continue to push and pull at one another as time goes on and technologies evolve, it is important to remember that both sides do have their place. As a common user, I want easy access to search engines and social media; no part of me wants to have to work for Google in order to search for restaurant phone numbers and driving directions. That also does not mean that I want them aggregating all of my internet activity to target me with heavily researched ad placement, but for now, that’s the case. How can we change this, from the front-end? And what will we have to concede here in order to gain there?

A Clay Shirky TEDTalk:

Positive Crowdsourcing

Felix Stalder’s article The Front-End and Back-End of the Social Web attempts to expose the current framework and operations of the social web. He addresses two very different sides of what we the users have come to know as a social cyberspace. One side is the front end. It’s the part of the social web most of us are familiar with, the interface or product. The back end is made up of everything that goes into constructing and running the programs that the average person uses. In other words, it’s the behind the scenes of the social web. Stalder provides examples of how the back end has, and is, shaping the way we use the internet. He uses the example of crowdsourcing to highlight how the back end of businesses may take advantage of user generated content, however it doesn’t always have to be a deceitful practice. 

Life in a Day is one of my favorite documentaries. It’s an experimental film, compiled entirely of YouTube videos that were created and submitted on July 24^th 2010,

by users from all over the world. The business model, or at least, how the film was organized, follows the model described by Stalder as crowdsourcing. The film was produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Kevin MacDonald. They are the back end, responsible for providing the platform for the content, however, instead of using their powers to turn a profit they use them to create art (and probably somewhere along the line turn a profit).

Life in a Day is an incredibly powerful film and it’s crowdsourcing at it’s finest (if you haven’t seen it, you can watch the film for free on YouTube, just click on the link at the bottom). Web 2.0 has now made it possible for a single editor with a computer to make a successful feature film and it’s pretty incredible at that. 

Everyone does a little and no one does a lot. The practice of crowdsourcing can have just as many (if not more) pros than it can cons, it all depends on the who, what, when, where and why.
Large scale collaborative projects definitely have an ability to produce innovative and creative works of art or modes of communication that otherwise would be impossible. What are some of the other amazing things we can achieve using the social web and crowdsourcing? 

Life in a Day - Feature Film

Arab Spring and Slacktivist Culture

                           
The idea of the Twitter Revolution and Arab Spring really fascinates me, simply for the reason why a lot us use social networks site in such a different way.  We typically use social media, such as Twitter, as a way to connect with people in a humorous way, or in a way that sheds a light on how interesting we are.  And yes, we may use it to show our support for other countries in need by posting articles and such.  The term we used in class was "slacktivist," and I think that it perfectly describes the types of users we are for our social networking sites.

Then there is the flip side, which is what this article is talking about, specifically relating to the Arab world, and what they call Arab Spring.  It is not surprise to me that something like this has happened due to the amount of technology we have, and also by how much the U.S. is involved in wars across the world.  People in the Arab world are using these social networks, and phones in a way that we could never really imagine using them in our everyday world.  While their government restricts them for what they can use, people in those countries still risk their lives to show what is going on their country to get the word out to the rest of the world. Posting videos on Twitter to show what is going on gets the mass population over here a closer look as to what is going on, and it on a networking site that we are most familiar with.

Now, whether or not we do anything about it still is up to us, but I believe because of this, we are now more fully aware and more active about our opinions over what is going on.  And while the slacktivist nature is still prevalent, it is slowly starting to diminish in my belief.

So my question is, have any of you been affected by the videos you see, and have you wanted to do something about it?  Do we just not know what to do about it?  What are some of the negative effects of these wars being so public?

Dictators = Cookie Thieves

In his article “The Role of New Media for the Democratization Processes in the Arab World,” Markus Sabadello argues against the technological deterministic notions that assert the “Arab Spring” is a result of new media technology.  He cites alternative examples of how past political revolutionaries took advantage of the technology available to them, claiming that new media is only a tool and not an instigator.
Technological utopianism refers to an ideology in which assumes that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fill the utopian ideal.

Sabadello criticizes this idea, but, he too slips into the techno-utopian trap. After discussing some of the “Countermeasures” governments have taken, Sabadello addresses the counter-countermeasures protestors can take using new media. This is where he gets hypocritical “A number of technology projects are under way that promise to make access to information, social networking, and other interaction on the internet more free, open and democratic, more empowering for individuals, and less vulnerable to manipulation or restriction” (Sabadello). By suggesting that we are only one tiny advancement away from a device or program that will finally liberate users from oppression, Sabadello takes up the techno-utopian argument. Although, to be honest, I can’t blame him. It’s very difficult not to imagine science and its technological advancements as the savior of the human race. Isn’t this why we invest in space programs, medical research, and any new discovery that looks as though it can somehow help us out? I think it gives us hope to believe there’s a machine out there, waiting to be developed, that will solve most of our problems. I tried to think of some recent scientific discoveries that have nothing but positive consequences, but we’ve even found a way to abuse antibiotics. Do we already have a technology or the ability to develop one that can do no wrong in the hands of a human being?
The video below is an example of how science failed to protect people even in a “perfect” simulated environment.

Science can replicate an environment suitable for human life, but we’ll still find a way to lose the pollinators and sneak in some candy bars. In other words, the innate characteristics of the new technologies that Sabadello promises will promote democracy, will be the same ones that restrict it. Tor may give the protestor or hacktivist anonymity when communicating over the internet, but it allows the opposition the same advantage. 
 

Citizen Journalism...Fan or Anti-Fan?

                             

One of the most interesting parts of this article is in relation to the anti-fans of Citizen Journalism versus the fans of Citizen Journalism.  Most forms of social media are going to have some kind of fandom and anti-fandom.  However, with some as specific to Citizen Journalism, it is interesting to me to see both sides of why it can be bad, or be good. 

The first argument was talking more about the beneficial side of Citizen Journalism.  Some people see it as our right to see what is going on around our community, our country, and also around the world.  No matter what the content is, it should be something that could be seen by all people.  When you watch the news or read a newspaper, it is almost forcing you to think about certain things.  While you form your own opinion, you only get an opinion over what is being presented in the article or news story.  With Citizen Journalism, any content can be added to the internet with a push of a button, and can spread pretty quickly.  That's why the speed of Citizen Journalism is another factor that makes it so appealing. I hadn't even heard the news about the West fertilizer plant explosion, but I looked on the internet, and saw the video, with a short description of what had happened. While it was difficult for me to know what exactly happened or really how much damage had been caused, I was informed of it before the news stations or newspapers ever got to it.  People can be informed faster through Citizen Journalism, and that is seen as a positive with some people. Also it can be used to raise activism about countries around the world that we may hear about on the news.  Videos get posted to the internet about riots, or police brutality, and other issues happening in other counties.  It makes people more aware about what is truly going on, rather than being filtered material through the news. 

Then there is the side of people who are against Citizen Journalism.  This mainly stems from people wondering why the person was videoing rather than helping what is wrong with what they are shooting, such as gang violence, or police brutality, or a house burning down, etc....Also there comes an issue as to the content that we view on the internet.  With as much access that we have nowadays, it is easier for anyone to get a hold of violent content including teenagers and children.  Some parents may not want their children to be exposed to such things, and with Citizen Journalism it is that much easier to find these things. The question of censorship is brought up a lot with Citizen Journalism, because a lot of these videos are hard to regulate, especially when twitter and facebook can spread them so fast. 

I also found the app Signal to be most interesting.  The fact that there is an app for Citizen Journalism shows the rise of it, which could then threaten traditional news media as well.  Signal allows users to post videos of newsworthy content, with a 60 character description.  Also if there are different videos of the same event, Signal puts them all together, kind of like a full news story.  

So I guess the question is, are you a fan of Citizen Journalism, or an Anti-fan?  What are some, if any, of the regulations that you would put on Citizen Journalism?  

It's Kind of Almost Citizen Journalism

In their article ‘This is citizen journalism at its finest': YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident Antony and Thomas compare traditional forms of media to a guard dog, “a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence.” They make the argument that media only publish news that corresponds with the status quo or supports an elite or dominant classes ideals and in turn claim that public platforms such as YouTube represent more diverse perspectives. They suggest that YouTube is a “democratic forum for otherwise oppressed voices, YouTube has afforded individuals who are victim to repressive state and federal authorities the opportunity to broadcast their strife and turmoil for the world to view” (Antony and Thomas.)
Although I believe citizen journalism benefits the American public by presenting alternative opinions during national debates, alerting people to news worthy events they might not have heard of, or allowing almost anyone to have a voice who wants one, YouTube is essentially no different than any other traditional form of media. Although anybody can upload, view, and discuss content on the site, Google still holds the ultimate authority on who gets access to that content. As the owner of YouTube, Google dictates what gets to be uploaded, viewed, and discussed. They are the editor and chief. Antony and Thomas use the example of how the cellphone footage of the Oscar Grant shooting demonstrated citizen journalist’s spreading the word of oppression. The video’s went viral overnight. Eventually television stations, according to Antony and Thomas, were “pressured” into broadcasting some of the videos because of the public outrage at the incident. However, are media moguls really pressured by citizen journalists if they are publishing their stories on these companies platforms? Is true citizen journalism out of our reach when we use websites like YouTube?
As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press, the government legally cannot censor public opinion. But a newspaper isn’t obligated to publish your letter to the editor and a website isn’t bound by law to broadcast your content.



I agree that citizen journalism is a more democratic model of media. It holds traditional forms of media accountable and encourages them to relay news and information honestly and accurately. However, as long as citizen journalists communicate through privately owned mediums such as YouTube, there will always be the possibility of censorship and that’s not
democracy.

Steven Colbert on YouTube Comment Censorship

The 4 Phases of Internet Regulation

       In "The 4 Phases of Internet Regulation," John Palfrey of Harvard university walks us through the various eras of the internet and the transition towards heavier regulation. It’s been a long a grueling process, with most regulations being a result of a reaction to something apparently undesirable, rather than a preemptive strike against things which are presumedly undesirable. And even once these regulations have been imposed, is it truly possible to enforce them? Especially when one considers the range of technology at individuals disposal in terms of circumventing firewalls and content filters such as Tor (anonymity online) and VPN (virtual private network) proxy servers.

In the earliest days of the World Wide Web, access was unlimited, but not necessarily easy. In stark contrast to the idea behind safe-harbor times in terms of broadcast indecency, originally there was no concern at all due primarily to the fact that most people simply did not have access to the technology. Of course, once computer systems have risen to prominence by the mid-1990’s, attitudes begin to change. As computer became more and more common in the home, there was an increasing concern that indecent material would be accessed (possibly involuntary) by minors and children. Much like the issues surrounding the regulation of the telephone and broadcast radio and television, a great deal of concern is placed around the idea that children need to somehow be protected from the harsh truths of reality which envelope their existence. While we as a people must respect certain people’s desires for how and when their children are exposed to certain content, are we not doing more harm than good by attempting to pretend that it simply doesn't exist at all?

Even when there is a push to limit access to, or even remove certain content entirely from the internet, Tor is making it possible for individuals to host website anonymously, making it nearly impossible to hunt down any sort of responsible (culpable) individual. In China, the go-to example of a heavily content-filtered web, many people are able to circumvent the country’s firewall simply by maintaining a private connection to a computer located outside the country, which can then act as a proxy server to the individual still within China’s boundaries. Even beyond that, Tor, whilst providing a free-speech outlet in many places which are afforded no such civil liberties, has enabled the establishment of much less desirable internet activity such as drug dealing and the distribution of child pornography. It is a constant give and take, between the freedoms which this technology has granted us, and what we consider as something that aught to be limited or prevented. It is ultimately subjective; and governments must weigh the concerns of their citizens equally before enacting legislation which regulates internet content in terms of both access and distribution.

It is a complex problem, but ultimately, can the internet truly be regulated at all? As long as someone has the resources to mask their identity online, how can anyone be charged with any crime? And even if something is considered undesirable, doesn't the expansiveness of the internet and range of available technology in the current era of there internet make it nearly impossible to filter out?

Interesting links to explore:

https://www.torproject.org - Anonymity Online; an array of software tools which help you mask your internet presence and allows access to ‘hidden’ sites being hosted from private servers embedded within the network (often times illicit or clandestine).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWfUOG0EA9w  - A very good visual representation of the implications concerning internet regulation (especially with the involvement of third parties) in China.