I am a firm believer that technology can be utilized to help government, especially if it used to make government more transparent and accessible. Although the comments on Slashdot suggest many ways technology can be used, one in particular stood out to me. I believe that Barack Obama's "youtube"presidency can have a tremendously positive impact on the way Americans view our government. I personally feel that a weekly presidential address will completely change the way the mainstream public feels about government in general.
This is a transition period in our countries' history. For the first time since I can remember we have a president elect who actually excites and inspires the American public. I believe Obama can utilize technology to help keep the American inspired and interested. Some comments on slashdot suggest that these youtube videos won't work because nobody is actually interested in government. "The problem with accessible government is that no-one's interested. Even where there are dedicated TV channels (e.g. in the UK) hardly anyone watches them. Why's that? Because the work of government is almost 100% pure tedium. No-one wants to watch what happens in committee meeting - even if that's where the laws are actually made, nor do are they prepared to sit through hours of televised debate." While this quote presents a valid point I don't believe that it is touching on the proper subject. I think Obama can use these videos to help him keep the interest of the mainstream public. American morale is at an all time low after 8 years of Bush and I think the Americans are ready for a complete change. For example, I believe that the average American feels no daily connection to government, he votes on election day and then forgets about government for the most part. By utilizing youtube as a weekly communicative media Barack Obama can completely change that.
Many posts on slashdot also suggest that any messages the president would be sending would be false or watered down anyway. I feel that this is a more legitimate cocnern. There is definitely a buffer between the truth and what the public actually hears about government. But I believe that Barack Obama doesn't need to use these videos as a front for filling Americans in the absolute truth. I think these videos would be just as useful if he spent 5 minutes explaining to Americans the current state of affairs regarding foreign policy, the economy, and other issues that are important to Americans. I believe the most important thing is that Obama shows his face once a week and assures the Americans that everything is ok. Reassurance is all people really need.
This new idea of using technology to help government is definitely a revolutionary and brilliant idea. In my mind the key to fixing our country is by increasing the average Americans' participation in government. I feel that mainstream America doesn't know enough about government to really be involved. If our government doesn't have anything to hide than I believe it would be a great thing if people could see it in action. Why stop with youtube videos, why can't people tune in to an entire congressional hearing. This new utilization of technology is going to change American politics forever and I believe for the better.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Net Neutrality
In simple terms Network Neutrality can be defined as the guiding principle that preserves the free and open internet. This means that the net provides no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents internet from blocking, speeding up, or slowing down web content on the basis of its source, content or ownership.
Our generation takes the internet for granted. Since we basically grew up with the internet we have certain expectations as to how we want the internet to work. We expect access to all web sites and we expect them all to load at the same speed and to provide us with the full content that the page has to offer. But are these reasonable expectations? Does the future hold a world where the internet is tailormade to fit the criteria of the providers and not the users? It is these issues that have sparked the controversy over net neutrality.
In my mind net neutrality is extremely important. I feel that the large internet providers have no right to manipulate internet content in order to serve there own personal agendas. The ability of the internet to remain neutral is what has allowed it to become so popular amongst every single group of people. The internet has been a driving force for economic innovation, democratic participation in government, and free speech online. If we lose the neutrality of the internet we are losing far more than a little content from certain webpages. When the internet was created it was meant to be used as medium for sharing information, and for nearly for the last two decades it has been used as just that. No matter who you are you can use the internet to find information that is beneficial to you. If we lose the neutrality of the internet we will lose it's democratic aspect. For an exmaple of how net neutrality could damage the public I conducted a small experiment. I went to google (who happens to argue for net neutrality along with ebay, amazon, yahoo, and the creator of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee.) and typed in "issues surrounding verizon." Google had hundreds of hits for this search which makes it very clear that verizon has had there fair share of problems with employees, competitors, and even subscribers. But think about what would happen if we lost the neutrality of the internet and companies like verizon got to decide what information was acceptable for the internet. They would have the ability to influence the public much the same way as mass media but to an even greater extent. If all the information on the internet was subjective then people would not have the option of seeking out information they wanted because the major corporations would control all the content. Say for example that I wanted to find negative information about Barack Obama during the election but corporations that supported Obama controlled the internet. These corporations would have the ability to block the information or just make it incredibly hard to access. They could make it so that the pages slandering Obama take 5 minutes longer to load than the pages slandering McCain. This kind of corporate interference is completely against democracy and goes against the free speech provided for in the 1st ammendment of the constitution.
The internet has always been and should always remain a place for objective discussion and sharing of information. If we lose net neutrality we will lose the democratic nature of the internet that has made it what it is today.
Our generation takes the internet for granted. Since we basically grew up with the internet we have certain expectations as to how we want the internet to work. We expect access to all web sites and we expect them all to load at the same speed and to provide us with the full content that the page has to offer. But are these reasonable expectations? Does the future hold a world where the internet is tailormade to fit the criteria of the providers and not the users? It is these issues that have sparked the controversy over net neutrality.
In my mind net neutrality is extremely important. I feel that the large internet providers have no right to manipulate internet content in order to serve there own personal agendas. The ability of the internet to remain neutral is what has allowed it to become so popular amongst every single group of people. The internet has been a driving force for economic innovation, democratic participation in government, and free speech online. If we lose the neutrality of the internet we are losing far more than a little content from certain webpages. When the internet was created it was meant to be used as medium for sharing information, and for nearly for the last two decades it has been used as just that. No matter who you are you can use the internet to find information that is beneficial to you. If we lose the neutrality of the internet we will lose it's democratic aspect. For an exmaple of how net neutrality could damage the public I conducted a small experiment. I went to google (who happens to argue for net neutrality along with ebay, amazon, yahoo, and the creator of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee.) and typed in "issues surrounding verizon." Google had hundreds of hits for this search which makes it very clear that verizon has had there fair share of problems with employees, competitors, and even subscribers. But think about what would happen if we lost the neutrality of the internet and companies like verizon got to decide what information was acceptable for the internet. They would have the ability to influence the public much the same way as mass media but to an even greater extent. If all the information on the internet was subjective then people would not have the option of seeking out information they wanted because the major corporations would control all the content. Say for example that I wanted to find negative information about Barack Obama during the election but corporations that supported Obama controlled the internet. These corporations would have the ability to block the information or just make it incredibly hard to access. They could make it so that the pages slandering Obama take 5 minutes longer to load than the pages slandering McCain. This kind of corporate interference is completely against democracy and goes against the free speech provided for in the 1st ammendment of the constitution.
The internet has always been and should always remain a place for objective discussion and sharing of information. If we lose net neutrality we will lose the democratic nature of the internet that has made it what it is today.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Second Life
Up until 3 days ago I had never even heard of Second Life. When I first read about second life I had no idea what to expect. After downloading it and checking it out for a while I was extremely impressed and surprised that I had never heard of it before.
I think second life is an extremely good social networking site. It gives users a multitude of options that allow them to communicate effectively with everyone else on the site. I found the site very difficult to use but I was able to make some progress after I started talking to people and finding out more and more about the world. I spoke to many different people many of who were also exploring the world in order to do assignments for their respective classes. I met two girls from purdue who were writing a paper about second life for their internet and society class. I found it very easy to talk to and share information people and I really liked it. I ended up talking to these girls for a while and we helped eachother navigate the grid and search out all the amazing features that second life has to offer. Before long we were much more well versed in second life. Together we learned to fly, walk around, purchase virtual property with Linden dollars(which the girls actually ended up buying.)
I also ended up striking up a conversation with another person on second life. He was a 25 Human resources manager whose boss had assigned him the task to find out whether second life was a valuable commodity for the company. He told me that his boss wanted to find out whether second life could be used to recruit and hold information sessions for workers. I ended up talking to him for a while in order to find out what his experiences with second life had been. He told me that he had been on second life for a week and was still having trouble fully navigating the site. I asked him if he thought that second life had any value his comapany and he responded by telling me that he had yet to see how second life could be used to hold information but that it could potentially be a good place to actively recruit new employees.
I definitely think that second life can be a valuable tool for building and maintaining relationships. All the poeple I met were extremely smart and interesting which led me to conclude that second life is a good social networking site if you are looking to meet good people. I like it better than normal chatrooms becuase it allows you to take your life skills and apply them to the virtual world in order to be successful. If you are looking for a good place to meet new people and build your social roladex second life is an extremely good place to do so. I will definitely be using it again in the future and I am extremely happy I found it.
I think second life is an extremely good social networking site. It gives users a multitude of options that allow them to communicate effectively with everyone else on the site. I found the site very difficult to use but I was able to make some progress after I started talking to people and finding out more and more about the world. I spoke to many different people many of who were also exploring the world in order to do assignments for their respective classes. I met two girls from purdue who were writing a paper about second life for their internet and society class. I found it very easy to talk to and share information people and I really liked it. I ended up talking to these girls for a while and we helped eachother navigate the grid and search out all the amazing features that second life has to offer. Before long we were much more well versed in second life. Together we learned to fly, walk around, purchase virtual property with Linden dollars(which the girls actually ended up buying.)
I also ended up striking up a conversation with another person on second life. He was a 25 Human resources manager whose boss had assigned him the task to find out whether second life was a valuable commodity for the company. He told me that his boss wanted to find out whether second life could be used to recruit and hold information sessions for workers. I ended up talking to him for a while in order to find out what his experiences with second life had been. He told me that he had been on second life for a week and was still having trouble fully navigating the site. I asked him if he thought that second life had any value his comapany and he responded by telling me that he had yet to see how second life could be used to hold information but that it could potentially be a good place to actively recruit new employees.
I definitely think that second life can be a valuable tool for building and maintaining relationships. All the poeple I met were extremely smart and interesting which led me to conclude that second life is a good social networking site if you are looking to meet good people. I like it better than normal chatrooms becuase it allows you to take your life skills and apply them to the virtual world in order to be successful. If you are looking for a good place to meet new people and build your social roladex second life is an extremely good place to do so. I will definitely be using it again in the future and I am extremely happy I found it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)