* June 7 * * ***We had our midterm this day; took a few notes but, don’t have it (not really important). You should have it somewhere if so, send it to me! June 14st, 2012 “The World According to Google” film notes * Google Algorithm is the most piece of valuable intellectual property in the world. * They were accused of favouring search results in favour of their sponsors * By digitizing, we will have to selectively pick what to keep. There is just too much. Long term unanticipated consequences will be the loss of libraries and archives that will be expensive in the future and have limited access. Google claimed that they weren't going to charge for digitized books, but in the future it isn't guaranteed. * Focused on the emergence of Google at a time that certainly appeared to advancing, and not willing to share that technology and not participate in the alliance to digitize books in a manner that would be public versus proprietary. * The distinction between the natural results in Google search versus the sponsored result. In the video, it was talked about as something new that Google was doing and still does increasingly. The description of what Google was going is that the sponsored links were not entirely based on how much the company was paying to have their link there at the top * The example used in the video is the furnisher maker working independently to advertise what Google was making competing with IKEA, but rank order of independent furniture could appear above IKEA if more people were entering that link. * In 2011, there were allegations that the Google algorithm was biased and that results were not coming up based on popularity. Google denied these allegations. Google was making a claim that they were neutral, without affecting the content of the information. * It ought to raise some questions on our end, that media plays a significant role in what and how issues are represented. * Public and private spheres is highlighted in the video. Hamermas and the role of the media in that context. The question arises about what the nature of the information is that Google has and provides with respect to it being reflective of the public or private enterprise. * Google makes the money from advertising, just like traditional media. Google makes audiences.
Google books would be free because they would attract the audience to books and they would be exposed to advertising. The fact that Google provides this information for free to users of Google in no way means that Google will always provide it for free. * Private companies can be very benevolent when they’re making money. When companies are making money, they can do all sorts of things. But that changes when companies for whatever reason stop being very popular. It starts to be a concern. * Issue that arises is whether material digitized by Google will always be in the public sphere. * Another issue is a little more significant.
It relates to Google’s intent to organize all the information in the world. The projected timeline to get this done is 200 years. * We all choose Google and get the information from Google despite the fact that we can go get them from somewhere else. * If we all choose to use Google and we all end up getting the same result because it’s the same one we all click on the most, we will all be getting the same information and whatever we ask, we will think there is a consensus on this point, simply because we’ve all opted to do the same thing and come to the same conclusion and not realize that we’ve done. The appearance of a consensus emerges because we’ve chosen to use Google and clicked on the second or third result. * We are trying to understand the consequences of ICTs in our society. Mobile Media * ICTs stands for: Information and Communication Technology * Technology is an: Applied Art * The Internet represents the emergence of the modern ICT. * ICTs have a premodern definition. The first ICT is the printing press. * The emergence of the modern ICT: * Communication * Printing press (1440) * Telegraph (1800s) * Telephone (parallel to telegraph), electronic exchange switch, mobile phone. Information * Printing press (1440) * Radio (1900s) * TV (1950s) **All 3 are considered traditional media. * It represents an ICT in that it combined the 2 functions of information and communication in a primitive form. * Then we find the emergence of the electronic ICT in the telegraph in the early 1800s. It’s in this context that the telegraph represents an innovation as it relates to communication, and enabling for the first time what we refer to as generally real time (instantaneous) relatively two way communication. The evolution of these technologies evolve further in an informational context with the advent of radio, commercial radio, the information here being one way communication, but wireless one way communication. Following that fairly within a few decades is television. Same time, parallel in this context, focused on the communication aspect is the emergence of the telephone and the electronic exchange switch. * The intersection between both (communication and information) represents the modernized ICT that is embodied largely by the INTERNET.
Order custom essay The World According To Google: Communication And Technology with free plagiarism report
It is those not entirely distinct functions that emerge from information in ICT and communication in ICT, the convergence of everything that is happening in those 2 spheres as those technologies evolved. Communication is taking place in real time, which is a characteristic that emerges with the telegraph. The characteristic that space (geography) no longer matters. It is in real time and relatively instantaneous. * We also see in the Internet what emerges in mass media, it is infinitely scalable. Radio being the form that you can broadcast the signal to as many people as you want, the only condition is that there is a receiver at the end.
The Internet is the same. We see one of the greatest innovations that we didn’t have here which is that anything that happens here has the potential to be two way instead of one way communication. As is consistent with all ICTs is that communication is ALWAYS mediated. The introduction of the electronic exchange switch is that the intermediary is no longer human. The mediator is technological, no longer human. * The other dimension that comes up is mobility. And mobility is what’s new in this context and the question of the extent to which this relates to the internet is an open question but certainly in this point is time they are inked. * Mobility is an emerging focus that has some consequences. It is the innovation that builds upon that intersection whereby users of this technology can interact, communicate, in a two way dialogue, in real time, and on the move (not stationary, tied in a landline or computer). * Fluent Smith says that arising from the fact that technologies are mobile, they are the technologies that you must use most often, not because they are the best technology for this application but because it is the technology you have at hand. Example is phones with cameras on them.
It’s not that mobile phone takes good pictures that makes it a good camera, it is the fact that you have your phone with you that makes it a very popular camera. * Cameras in our phone are getting better but they are not the best. “the best camera you have is the camera you have with you. ” Technologies used because they are with us. * The other example relates to watches. Instead of using a watch, you use your phone. * The issue of mobility brings on some other technological consequences or conditions or parameters that relate to the wireless spectrum that this technology relies upon.
The spectrum that enables us to be mobile and to communicate in a wireless manner. * When we communicate in a wireless manner, we rely on various frequencies and this has emerged in an extremely lucrative market. There isn’t an unlimited spectrum. * This emerging market relates to the mobility of the new element that started with the cellphone. * Started with modern ICT, which started with the Internet. * One of the issues is how much spectrum does the BB and iPhone use? The BB is superior since it has a far narrow spectrum, which means it is more efficient. The electromagnetic spectrum is a shared and finite resource. You cannot just keep going further on the radio whether you are listening to whatever, you cannot keep going to 110 111, because that spectrum is for something else. * With respect to mobility, we also get a number of other innovations that arise in the context of mobility and technologies that support mobility. We think of it as our ability to communicate information in relation to ourselves, but there is also the ability of the technologies we use to communicate amongst one another and track certain information.
One of those contexts relates to the radio frequency identification chips sensitive to particular signals and able to communicate to their location. One of those chips might be fixed to products that are being shipped by train so that the owner of the product can see and track where that product is. * Machine to machine communication arises in the context of intellectual property and it comes up like this. We talk about the Internet as being this great innovation that relates to our ability to access information that was previously inaccessible and we see the great potential this has.
We also see a problem arising because of ownership of information. This issue arises from all sorts of intellectual property (example: downloading music). * What happens now is that if previously you went to a concert and they told you not to bring a camera and suddenly everyone has camera and all sorts of devices and you take pictures with your phone. There is an inherent conflict because the producers want to reserve the rights of the concert. * Increasingly, this ability to communicate will have an effect of what we do and do not do with our technology. The effort to regulate and penalize people who infringe copyrights is becoming more difficult. * The ability of technology on being on site in the concert to tell your camera phone that this behaviour is prohibited, but for $5. 99 you can. It is that ability to interface with the technology while mobile and control the freedom inherent in the technology that often we associate with proprietary rights. * That is one dimension that is right around the corner. Another one relates to police who are concerned with people taking pictures of them shooting people in the head or kicking someone.
They have a kind of chip where if you take a picture with your phone, it will say that this action is prohibited. * The use of the technology was part of the communication that citizens could take advantage of in Egypt and seek international support to avoid civil war and even worse. The ability to what is thought of as liberating technology to be constrained and limited just because it is thought of as being liberated. * June 21th- * The focus of Smith relates to social networks and network in new media as opposed to old media. * Social networking is not supposed to be just social.
There are also other forms of networking that are not really commonly referred to. They are not just social in orientation. * We want to consider the capacity of networking that the Internet presents. What are the impacts in the longer term? The references to this historic emergence of the telegraph is intentional and instructive; The changes were dramatic as a result of the telegraph. * In the context of the telephone – suddenly anyone could call anyone else. It was a change of the social convention. Prior to the invention of the switch, there was always a human intermediary.
That intermediary had the capacity to control or regulate who got to talk to whom. There were protocols, staff that you had to get thru if you wanted to talk to someone. * The implications of the telephone were significant. The age of the Internet is also significant. Our ability to talk to others is no longer on the premise that there are some people that I can and can’t talk to. We are being contacted by all sorts of people. It is a very profound flipside to a regulated context. Ex. The spam that we get that we often filter out.
Our challenge of the age of Internet is trying to regulate and manage this huge amount of communication that is now going everywhere and that is difficult and sometimes threatening. * Social stratification – different classes of people interact with one another. Some have more privilege and powers over others. In the context of the Internet, those distinctions are no longer relevant. * We spend energy, money, and resources to try to manage those efforts to receive or prevent information. * When we talk about social networks, they are very different from the age of the telegraph.
One of the distinctions is this distinction between a social network and a social group. * A social group – it is more exclusive and you know all the members of the group * Social network – it grows very rapidly; you don’t really know everybody. These people may be people who are mutual friends. * In some cases, we see networks as friends (on Facebook). We can be certain that they don’t really know the majority of these ‘friends. ’ * Behind the idea of social networking is social capital – some people have richer social networks than others.
They sometimes represent nodes in a network. This is by affiliation with these people as they interact with these nodes; this becomes more relevant in the context of modern social networking. * Someone like Bin Laden was able to exert such great influence over the world in part by relying upon new and old social networking as a basis of communicating a message. Bin Laden was able to disseminate messages widely that would build support, the ability to capture global attention using these technologies, and used a horizontal and decentralized network.
Bin Laden represents a node – lots of social capital. This example highlights the significance of networks as something defining in our generation. * The Internet was seen as the antidote for some of the problems that was created. It was the solution. The potential of the Internet is great. Factors that enabled ICTs (how the Internet changes the game) BOOK 1. Peer to peer 2. There is a wide range of global sources – no longer limited to watching the news on CBC, or reading the NY times. We now have access to a lot of information from around the world 3.
Lack of regulation a decision that was made that the policy of the Internet would be without intervening. Lack of regulation of CONTENT (carriage and content) how we get information vs. the information we receive 4. Unconstrained by geography 5. Challenge official position – who gets to have a say 6. Filtered The reality is that there is tremendous potential that we need to take advantage of. What is it that is different in the current context vs. 20 years ago. Facebook Follies Video Notes * Main task of Facebook – create audiences FB does not actually make anything. They provide a platform for us to give stuff to them. ‘user generated content’ – web 2. 0 enabled non-techy type people to actually put stuff on the Internet. * Smith talked about social production and the rise of models of info and cultural production – it becomes relevant to start thinking what these platforms relate to. They relate to information (likes/dislikes, clear picture of our networks, etc. ) * FB operates in a manner that when we upload info on our FB account, that they own the pictures that you put on their website.
We generate the content, but the economic benefits flow to someone else. * Traditional media were conceived as being displaced by the Internet – we have also seen that some of the potential that is embedded in the same major corporations – they have accelerated the flow of traditional media content across a variety of delivery channels. * We have seen that traditional media find their place within this new environment and reestablish the role that they had previously in the context of the internet.
The question is has the emergence of the Internet translated a new awareness to its users. Are we smarter than before? June 28th, 2012 Digital Nation Film Notes * Multitasking is effecting grades * Brain cannot do two things at the same time- classic psychology states this * Study: slower when you are switching then doing one task at a time * Multitasking destroys are creativity * Spend 50 hours a week with digital media- more then a full work week * Their needs to be more research on the effects of the internet; why lack of research?
Technology becomes obsolete * Korean gaming craze; Some people have died from this craze * There is an internet addiction – Korea treats it has psychiatric condition * Korean kids taught to go online the same time as they read- learn how to use a computer responsibility * Korea has a top down approach * Education requires different things then they did before – building things, communicating and problem solving * Instant gratification education- you cannot pursue one linear thought; Teachers cannot assign a novel * 6% of students are prepared literally Basic skills are worse today * Big ideas are not carried through- small bursts of ideas are carried through; Paragraphs do not connect with one another * Learning stays the same; we just need new ways of teaching * Distraction is not a new issue- so it is not the internet * Distraction is a problem we have coped with and as culture learned how to adapt to it- better to explore then not embrace * Second life write the rules of communication * Alienation is being solved by more technology says second life company;
Believes technology bring us back together; We are alone out on the internet together * We can still meet people in the comforts of our house- replaces meetings with virtual meeting * Immersive environment is more human and engaging then actual meeting * Virtual reality feels real; Real and virtual becoming blurred- feeling sick or full from fake eating; If it looks real brain tells us its real * Exposure to virtual reality carried to face to face real interaction * Swimming whales experiment- believe that they swam with whales if they see themselves in virtual reality but in reality didn’t * Virtual reality therapy Games used a recruitment tactic July 5th, 2012 (week 10) Knowledge Economy * Refers to a period that we are in right now. It is a period of time where a number of things have come together; buying and selling of knowledge * We have a large amount of information at our disposal (speed + volume). * We are an economy based on ‘knowledge’. It’s not really about knowledge but more about information. * The information/knowledge is more global because it comes from different sources around the world. All of these are factors that have been enabled as a result of the computer, coupled with the evolution of that technology. * The knowledge society is defined by the commodification of information. * A commodity is something that has value in the market place. * What typifies the knowledge society is the regulation of information. * It is the fact that when something becomes a commodity, it becomes proprietary. This means that someone owns it and this means that others do not own it. This is the antithesis of free-flowing information. * The nature of information has changed in this era.
Information as a Commodity is 1) Inconsumable – Not consumed by its use. 2) Untransferable – You can sell the information and still have the information. 3) Indivisible – Information must be transferred as a whole entity to have meaning. Ex. You can sell half a barrel of oil and it would be fine. 4) Accumulative – The addition of more information is more than the sum of its parts. As you add layers to information, you add value to that information. (Information needs to be relevant and accurate. ) * These four factors are unique to information as a commodity.
You couple it with facets such as speed and volume, and by extension the accessibility of information around the world has created some problems when the information is proprietary. When I own the information, I need to safeguard this information. Legal Protection in Place to Safeguard Intellectual Property Copyright The exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc. Patent The exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years.
Trademark Any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner. License Agreements The right to use software in certain contexts for certain purposes. It’s not an absolute right. The ownership of that software still resides with the creator such as Microsoft, IBM, etc. Chaos Wisdom Continuum Amout of Processing
Potential Utility * What is the difference between information and knowledge? You can sell information unlike knowledge. * Knowledge = information + experience * Wisdom = Knowledge OVER Time * Internet is on the lower half of the continuum (information, data, and chaos). * We cannot find knowledge and wisdom on the Internet. * We are reliant on the Internet because we believe that is all that is out there. * We need to look beyond to find knowledge and wisdom. Internet should be the starting point towards knowledge and wisdom. * There is the fear of loosing all of this information.
Example: sailing practices in Europe. * Knowledge implies understanding. However, it is not automatic. It’s perhaps the greatest paradox of our time that we have access to unprecedented levels of information, but at the same time, we’re potentially more uninformed than ever. * Question of whether we’re smarter now than a similar group of people in another time. Are we smarter or dumber than before? In last week’s ‘Digital Nation’ video, Mark Bauerlein, author of ‘The Dumbest Generation’ states his opinion. How do we measure smart? Studies show that tests are easier now. There is a theory that our brains are plastic and malleable. We can change/train our brains to be a certain way. Our brains do change and develop based on what we’re exposed to. That could mean that certain skills are better developed based on what they’re exposed to. * Artificial intelligence, like Watson, lacks the understanding of context like geographic based questions * This framework consists of 4 elements that we can ask that could be useful or more meaningful in determining the capacities that we have now versus the capacity we had during other times.
It could be helpful in determining our intelligence. Framework (around smartness) Elements 1) Capacity to communicate with others in a manner that is rich in meaning and comprehensive. More difficult to measure, but it speaks to unique human capacities. 2) Ability for self-reflection. It’s the ability to think about oneself based on the stock of knowledge and experience that one has accumulated. It’s the idea that we are always growing during our lifetime. Every day we learn a little bit more about ourselves and the world around us, and making use of that. 3) The ability for abstraction.
It’s the ability to use different words and meanings in different contexts. 4) The ability to link different ideas or information and to draw meaningful conclusions based on these associations. This is actually analysis. Analysis is about being able to see connections and linkages. In the basic sense scheduling requires an understanding of analysis. I can’t be in two places at once. * We are less engaged than we used to be. * The problem really is the value that we give to the Internet and that kind of knowledge. * It’s about being able to regurgitate information. Misplaced metaphor is that the idea of the knowledge society is not characterized by the free flow of information but by the proprietary of information. * As smart and as quick as an individual can be, none of that in and of itself translates well into this kind of framework, and certainly not in the context of a computer like Watson. July 12 * Fluent Smith defines or identifies three distinct facets of the knowledge economy as having come together and to some degree independently. * The 3 factors that came together are: 1. Prevalence of ICTs, so quite literally the technology. 2.
Globalization which refers in many respects to economic context of our world based largely on ability to communicate globally, 3. Value of information in terms of safeguarding the value of intellectual property. The value of information as a commodity. Information has value in this context. * Those 3 trends: ICTs, globalization, and value of info have emerged independently throughout the years to redefine the context that we’re in. * It’s the absence of learning however that highlights the challenge set out to potential of Internet. * Our emphasis is on amusement and convenience.
Those are 2 concepts that really inform what we are doing with the Internet. * Driver of the Internet has become commerce. * With commerce as the driver we are much concerned about the governance of states. * Commerce has begun to define the world as an image that suits the design of free capital. * Page 171: table that talks about old and new paradigm **** Review; It is useful to think of companies like RIM and Apple when looking at the 2 sides of the table. * In the text, there is an extent of focus on ecommerce: GO THROUGH ON YOUR OWN; It is worth looking at impact that digitization has on distribution of media that is ocused on in this article * Fluent Smith argues is that digitization of content has eliminated many of traditional bottlenecks in media. * The traditional bottlenecks (narrow opening) access to info was slowed down at that point; distribution such as newspapers that control access and thereby created these bottlenecks. * What fluent smith argued is the fact that we can access this info online without those bottlenecks (controllers of information, gatekeepers) they argue that popularity is no longer a prerequisite for profit * Teachers experience is different: Certainly, that is true to some extent. Personally I find that in as much as we have access to a diversity of media so we can follow and watch and track countless sources and streams of information, the fact is that we are in many respects all drawing on a very narrow cross section, that we are still very much tuned into things that are popular, that go viral, songs that are hits, movies that are blockbusters. One might suspect that we are becoming more diverse, not engaged in mass culture where we share same views. I don’t see that! Any thoughts on that?
How much do you feel in terms of your experience, that you are a part of a larger group vs a much more diversified group of individuals? Take a classroom like this. Do you have a sense of mass culture? * Classroom today vs. 50 years ago is so much more diverse. * Fluent smith is suggesting that need for popularity no longer exists, and that has to do with commerce. You don’t need to have mass appeal anymore to generate profit. And it is there that he asked that question. * In 2008, google had a trillion distinct urls in its embassies. That suggests that there’s a whole lot of information. Half a trillion urls contain important meaningful, thoughtful, relatively accurate information. * Then the question becomes how we distinguish quality content from garbage content. The idea that we actually don’t have the tools to distinguish the two. * One of the things fluent smith highlights is the work of clay churky, commentator on technology and what he calls the cognitive surplus. * It speaks to what we do with our spare time and what would happen if we used it productively, the potential there. * This idea that time that we spent is not passive. A dedicated period of active focus, out of the box, off the mainstream thinking. One of the things that comes up with respect to this challenge and access and info overload is what fluent smith refers to as identifying 3 basic problems: * Misinformation * Information that is wrong. Therefore we draw conclusions from that not knowing they are incorrect. * Disinformation * Information that objectively speaking is not wrong but is there intentionally to mislead you. * Excess of information * The way that he sees it is the Internet is equivalent to our access to a trillion recipes. All sorts of recipes. We have access to info but losing ability to apply info.
We have lots of recipes but don’t know how to cook. The thinking is being taken out of applying info and acquiring knowledge and we are invited much more now to access info that someone has accessed for us. The challenge is we can sell info in a knowledge economy but we are at a loss at applying info in a way that is equivalent to knowledge. Like creativity, knowledge is not easily bought or sold. * Chapter 9 focuses more on regulation of internet, focus on potential that internet embodies and risk that this potential is put at as a regulatory apparatus and is emerging to safeguard the value of the info that is on the internet. A lot of questions and issues around info online are dealt with legal apparatus * A lot of ruling described are finding regulation in context of traditional commodities as opposed to intellectual property that exists online. * We see the extent of exiting property regimes to traditional goods and services being applied in an online environment and it is interesting to observe that because it is the internet that originally foreshadowed that regulation information was to be legalized entirely. Suggested that it was revolution that will entirely change the sharing of information because of regulation. Article (don’t know which one…. sorry) assigned where it highlights different contexts where what kind of info is being regulated in different countries. Not so much HOW, but WHAT. * The issue of regulation, term raised is “forbearance”, which is the approach that most governments have taken with respect to the regulation of the Internet. * Forbearanceabsence of regulation. Even though it is about not doing anything, it is still in itself a policy option. Forbearance applies to content of Internet as opposed to the carriage of information. * Content refers to the WHAT information.
Carriage refers to the HOW and WHOM. * It is in the context of content that forbearance is a policy option. * Regulation of media in Canada is CRTC Canadian Radio and Television + Communications Commission. It is the regulator of media and telecommunications in Canada. * Important distinction that exists in regulation of media vs. new media or social media. And that is with respect to traditional media, the CRTC regulated both carriage and content as opposed to regulating only carriage. * What aspects of traditional media must have been regulated? Canadian content. * What does that mean?
It refers to the need for programming to originate in Canada. * Obligation to play a certain proportion of Canadian music (maybe 30%), then the radio station will play a lot of Canadian songs between midnight and 6 am that you wouldn’t otherwise hear. Has also been an issue in the production of magazines. * The reason is if those regulations didn’t exist, it is argued that there would be no Canadian television shows, music, magazines. Canadian programming sometimes receives subsidies from gvt in order to support it. It is hard to compete in the marketplace dominated by Hollywood movies. Another thing that CRTC regulates is decency AND French/English/Other * Standards of decency change and we have seen that over our life course that we could watch in tv has changed, crtc seeks to reflect change in culture in terms of what is considered appropriate language and nudity, and what is considered inappropriate. Term used is ACCEPTABILITY OF PROGRAMMING. * Availability of service: bell Canada in exchange for its monopoly had to provide internet access everywhere reasonably in Canada. It was not simply allowed to provide service in some places.
If the policy option with respect to access is one of forbearance is what we would have seen because it is only profitable to apply in urban centers. * Regulation of CRTC relates to something specific, the regulation of advertising. It is important to say when looking at all regulations that this trend has been toward deregulation certainly over the past 30 years * Deregulation of traditional media: bodies in Canada were taken out of various aspects of the regulation of media, not entirely, but a trend towards deregulation. Interesting to watch in context of advertising. Subliminal advertising: the idea that advertisers where trying to use messages that you weren’t actually aware that you are receiving but would act on your subconscious: flashing a hotdog on a screen while watching football makes you want a hotdog. * Interesting trend in advertising like in Canada that is regulated is pharmaceutical drugs basically. Ads for Viagra. Cant provide name of drug and tell us what it does. Either NAME or what it does. Viagra has been quite creative in developing ads that tell us what the drug is and not what it does. We have learned to infer. Alcohol and tobacco are also regulated. Alcohol restricted in where it can appear. Tobacco has disappeared from television. * All that regulation and trend in deregulation has found itself as a nonissue in the internet. * Access to the internet is regulated, content is not regulated. * Important to know that although content is not regulated, general laws still applies (example: pornography for children). * We are talking about regulation of content by CRTC. * Hate crime is also criminal offense against criminal code. Cannot express things like that online and still get away with it. Ultimately, media regulation and its challenges relate to this idea of the public interest. Regulation for what? Regulation in the public interest. * Why might the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada have those rules against Viagra? What’s the problem in saying what Viagra does? What’s the issue? * We have medicare in Canada. There are contexts in which access to prescription drugs is provided to ensured subsidized program, advertising can be to an effect. People will ask not for a drug that addresses erectile dysfunction, but for Viagra, which costs more.
We don’t want to subsidize the most expensive drugs, which are the ones advertised. * There is a conflict between public interest and commercial interest. It is in the interest of manufacturers to make as much money as they can. There is always a tension between regulation and commercial interest which is in the interest of the owners of a particular product. The conflict has played itself out in the last decades in the favour that support deregulation and forbearance. * Even though commercial media is representative of private institutions, there was a public interest attached to their function in society.
That is what we learned from traditional media in society (public watchdog) * The presumption has been that the Internet would function in the public interest without having to regulate content or repute some kind of intentions of outcomes. Has to do with information highway. Letting what happens on the internet happen with no interference is going to be in the public’s interest, and that is in fact true. Things that help to enhance companies and interests when we least expect it. * It is the fact that states and gvt that are not regulating media that leads us to info we have now.
Leads to disinformation and misinformation, and google wants to organize the info for us for their own profit. Acting in their shareholder interest NOT public interest. * We need to see our interaction in that environment on facebook and elsewhere. We need to be informed as consumers and citizens, what we are provided with, why, and at what cost whether obvious or not obvious. * One of the costs relates to surveillance. Pops up a couple of times with fluent smith. Surveillance that is explicit as well as implicit relating to use of sites online and wifi used in coffee shops for example, and our phones where our movement is tracked.
July 19 * Remote controlled machine is a creative industry- other side of creativity- is the kind of the creativity that perhaps some of us don’t want to see * Just because we have ingenuity to create something doesn’t mean we ought to create it Remote Control War Film Notes * http://www. cbc. ca/documentaries/doczone/2011/remotecontrolwar/ ( read this article to be more informed) * Possible to kill someone in real time through remote control system * Drone has become the weapon of choice and has increased 300% * Unmanned revolution * Robots have been used to save lives Next development is a multitasking robot (called bear) * You don’t confront the harm that you are causing when you are using drones- moral issues * Insurgents put themselves in populated areas- collateral damage * Robots are a closer to a washing machine * Robots are not autonomous they remote controlled * Wish to have fully autonomous robot with face recognition and night vision * Autonomy is the end goal * Humans can only make a number finite decisions * Humans are the weak link – cannot make decisions in lightning speed * Having the people in the loop is bad Brains operate in a fixed rate * We have one thing over robots- we have reasoning and judgment * Swarm- cannot be under human control; they organize themselves; the negotiate among themselves; focus on a single task * Big enough swarm; humans cannot focus on this; just way too many of them * Drone created under the Bush administration and became more success * No declared war in Afghanistan; drone are a way to go beyond the rules of war * No idea of the rules or decisions that constitute the use of drones * The use of drones; there is a lack of transparency In the CSI’s part; and believed to mostly illegal Fluent smith * Introduced access to the Internet; is it a human right? * There are ppl who lead a traditional life- do not use the internet * At some point all people are going to need to use the internet * It invites us to think Last chapter * Teacher highlights that in 2010 the internet usage surpassed the time spent watching television; Teacher surprised to see that not happen earlier * Is “Google making us stupid” Intellectual technologies- extend our mental abilities * Argument: we are becoming pancake people “breadth but not depth” * Reading has now become like riding jet ski- skimming the surface * Fluent: we are not applying the same kind of rigor then we did in the context of traditional media. Don’t have this in the Internet.
Role of journalism is being supplanted by other media- blogging, citizen news * Fluent: emphasizes mobility; as a unique and new facet * Hive mind; depicted in the robots; no one controlling mind; do their own thing; one of the features of jeopardy with respect with Watson; we see what Watson is thinking; process the comp goes through when the question is asked and answered; “I’m 77% that it is this answer” * Fluent: we are always on” now as technology users; capacity to be in constant communication; there is a potential in their that becomes a kin to a hive; displaces the need to think for our selves * Grey elephant in Denmark; we think we are thinking our own thoughts but we are thinking the same as everyone else * Focus on the authors “internet of thing” the meaning of the Internet is no longer defined by the technologies that we physically see.
Now what technology enables * Central feature and that feature is a screen “archeologist”. The screen is the physical manifestation of that interface of technology * Screen is a light * We are like moths – we are drawn to lights and difficult to pull are selves away from- fascination and reliance of screens
Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?