Internet Censorship

The topic of internet censorship is one that I think goes hand in hand with this whole class because I think censorship makes it so people live in a bubble and can’t experience diversity the way we do here in America.  Countries like North Korea and China cut their citizens off from outside influence and it makes me wonder if their governments are really xenophobic or if they just really want to keep such iron-fisted control over the people who live there and make it seem like the only way of living is theirs and that thinking outside the box should never happen.  I think it also makes it really easy for these governments to find all the bad that happens outside of their country and use it as propaganda and why other nations are wrong/bad.

Its ironic to think of internet censorship in a positive way since here in America what we see that is censored is usually horrifying, heinously violent, and/or gory and in some type of video or visual form.  And I think that those things definitely need to be censored because if we want to make positive changes in the world, then that type of content shouldn’t be seen, at least for “entertainment value.”  I do think that, for the most part, censorship is a problem because it makes it so governments can keep people in the dark and more easy to manipulate because they don’t have any other point of reference.  I know cultures are different all around the world, but I don’t think any country should use censorship as a way of controlling citizens.  Honesty from governments to their people has fallen by the wayside, in my opinion, and censorship has definitely played a part in that.

Response to Jon and Kira

As Kira and Jon were presenting on omission of information, I thought that they did a nice job talking about the ways in which media is manipulated to garner the most attention.  It was interesting how they tied Alfred Hitchcock’s viewpoint in manipulating scenes for movies into how the same type of thing is done across the various forms of media we consume on a daily basis; it really drives home the point, for me personally, to say and feel really informed that I need to take the time researching news, especially when it has been sensationalized, to make sure I see issues from multiple views and not just a tunnel vision one.  Main stream media is incredibly biased and its important to remember that, even if someone has a viewpoint that is disagreeable to yours, maybe you should hear them out and not just automatically ignore what they’re saying since differing points of view can be important.

I thought it was a good idea on Jon and Kira’s parts to include the difference between “mainstream,” “gatekeeping,” and “sensationalism” because I had no idea that reporting is done in these three ways, and it definitely plays a part in which stories are seen and have impact for any reason.  Gatekeeping is probably what we see the least of because, anymore, it seems like there is no story or video clips/pictures that outlets won’t display just once.  A few years ago on the west side of the state, up in Burlington there was a shooting at the mall there, and Seattle news stations played the store video of the shooter entering the store and randomly shooting people before leaving; the video, IMHO, didn’t really add to what happened, aside from it being random and a tragedy and was kind of grossly voyeuristic and so I think news does that kind of as a “click bait” type of thing to get more views and ratings.  Which is gross.  What this presentation really hit home was that, as the consumer, we’re responsible for what we see on media and where we get information, and its up to us to make sure we try to get viewpoints from the other side.  If the news is going to click bait us, the least we could do is make sure we’re well informed.

Native American Internet Appropriation

“Connection at Ewiiaapaayp Mountain” is a chapter that talks about the difficulties of getting internet onto Native American Reservations when many locations are so inhospitable or hard to travel on that basic infrastructure is nearly non-existent (though much of the lack there is the fault of the US Government not honoring the promises they made to tribes when they moved them there.)  Even with the internet existing on reservations while tribal members like to use the internet, elders don’t necessarily like the idea because they do fear the loss of their culture to an outside population that really knows nothing about Native Americans at all.  And at the end of the day, users of the internet on reservations have to pretend to use it in ways dictated as appropriate by the government, who subsidizes the internet on reservations.

One thing that grabbed my attention as I was reading this was the section “Tribal Perspectives on the Internet” and the paragraph that touched on tribal leadership’s view on the internet.  For the Warlpiri tribal leaders they say that satellite tv is part of a cultural war and a real threat to their way of life, but it’s kind of broken down into “those who have” and “those who don’t have.”  The culturally elite are the ones who are aware and thinking about the impact/consequences of internet access, but those who are “not-elite” are just excited and thankful of the ability and opportunity the internet brings to them.

The other section I found to be the most interesting, and that relates back the most to what we discussed this week in class was “Native Users Are Different; and They Are Required To Be.”  The opening paragraph to this section discusses how the TDV project “implies that success for the TDV will lead to new technological developments, reduce poverty, and preserve culture” (pg. 183.)  The funding and grant monies for TDV require that Native Americans who access the internet through this particular service are supposed to use it for educational purposes and to preserve their culture.  “To justify their expensive and heavily subsidized use of the Internet they must perform difference-they must act like disadvantaged Indians who seek uplift and the preservation of their culture, despite the fact that (just as it was in Michael’s account of the Warlpiri), they may be more interested in MySpace or soccer games” (pg. 185.)  Used “improperly” they could lose access to the Internet when so much of the US population gets to use it however they want.  In this manner, Native Americans appropriate the internet for their own enjoyment instead of the way the government dictates; we spoke about how appropriate happens in ways that aren’t really appropriate: people dressing up as Native Americans for instance, but I don’t think that Native Americans using the internet for fun and entertainment purposes is wrong or inappropriate.  They’re already relegated to poor living conditions, through no fault of their own that they shouldn’t have to worry about how they use the internet unless its for illegal uses/dealings.

Internet in Jails

Live from Lockdown is a website that seeks to inform people about what life in prison is like, and give voice to inmates who otherwise would continue to be silenced.  One focus in particular of the website is that it allows inmates, specifically incarcerated gang leaders, to engage with at risk kids who are either on the street or already in gangs and really inform them what life in jail is like.  Educating people on the outside, especially those who are at risk can help keep them out of jail, and a secondary goal of that information is keeping people out of jail because of the cost to tax payers and the government.

While I looked at this website, once thing that kind of surprised me about it is that it seems incomplete.  They have a menu button for inmate initiatives, but there’s no content when you click it.  It does have profiles of inmates, and a book list that was made by inmates, and a pretty visible donate button, but for what the purpose of this website wants to have it misses the mark, in my opinion.  There are tweets displayed but they are all 200+ days old, and it seems like those would actually be a focus of the website; inmates who do have access to the internet tweeting about their days?  I would think get a lot of attention.  One tweet that did catch my eye from 222 days ago was one about how Philadelphia will stop suing incarcerated inmates for child support.

This of course does bring into question internet access in jails.  Is it just as much a right as freedom of speech as some people pose, or is it a luxury?  Is internet access a necessity?  And how much moderation should be carried out?  In America, we treat the worldwide web as this absolute commodity that we need, and that to live without it, we would live a life of deprivation.  But at the end of the day, I do think that it is a luxury and that inmates should not have uncontrolled, unmediated access to the service.  I definitely believe that they should have access for education purposes, and be able to communicate with family and friends.

Which leads into moderation and probably censorship.  Moderation needs to happen to make sure inmates don’t use the internet unlawfully, or in a way that could be used to harm people on the outside.  One important question of moderation is privacy and making sure email and online chats for family matters remains between the parties participating and not used by those in positions of authority as bargaining chips.  Internet access in jails is kind of like a can of worms and I don’t think there are really any easy solutions that appease everybody involved.

Social Movements and the Network Society

“Changing the World in a Network Society” talks about how the internet and social media sites have allowed social movements to grow and evolve as they need to stay alive.  Physical social networks that existed before so many social media platforms were utilized also play into how social movements are a series of multimodal networks that allow people to mobilize and participate in both on and offline activities to further the movement’s message and make sure core values remain the same and at the center of conversation surrounding the social movement itself.  Since current social movements are a network of networks that might not have an “identifiable centre” but coordinate and “function between multiple modes” they don’t necessarily need a leadership or command structure to continue to work.  If there were leaders who tried to step up, those involved might not trust that leadership because they are already distrustful of political and government leadership, which is what has led to social uprising.

 

One thing that stuck out to me as I finished reading this chapter was how on page (of the book) 227, Castells said, “…but because demands are multiple and motivations unlimited they cannot formalize any organization or leadership because their consensus, their togetherness, depends on ad hoc deliberation and protest, not on fulfilling a program built around specific goals…” but as we saw in the video we watched on Wednesday, McKesson is running for office and I think it’s safe to say that he will work to create equality and try to make sure that justice in all cases is being met especially when it comes to police violence against people of color and how those cases are handled as they occur if he’s in office when those crimes happen.  The Black Lives Matter movement may not have official “leaders” but there is a core group of people who are trying to make sure that their original message isn’t lost in the rhetoric created by fringe groups who don’t necessarily want the same thing.  And I think it’s these people who have to make sure that their voice is the loudest to ensure that their core message is what is addressed politically.

Sliced and Diced, It’s Discrimination

Chapter 6 “Matrix Multiplication and the Digital Divide” is about the different computer- generated techniques that are used by companies to market their product to specific sets of people because of who they are.  Racial identification is a more useful tool to segregate different groups of people to “appropriately” advertise to them, or to have a middle man handle communication and interaction who would be a best fit, particularly to the consumer.  The tracking of individuals, though “anonymous” still provides information about different racial and ethnic groups of people, that is then disseminated to the correct people so that separate groups of people see separate advertisement of products and goods.  The Matthew Principle is easily applied, providing an advantage for “those who have” and a distinct disadvantage to “those that don’t.”

While there is a lot of technical jargon in this chapter and its presented in a detached manner, it struck me how by talking about the way information is captured how discriminatory the practices are.  Discrimination, and perhaps racism whether subconscious or not, is reduced to dollars and cents for companies to make the most money they can from different racial groups.  Targeted advertisement is old-hat in this country, where it’s ok to find out peoples’ personal information and exploit them personally and economically, “Because the interest in identification goes well beyond the determination of “who you are,” to a determination of “what you are,” the amount of information required to achieve confidence continues to expand” (Gandy page 130.)  Data mining technology and users are looking to find as much information about a person as possible to ensure that what they deem appropriate for race and gender is targeted exactly to their chosen demographic.

“Authentic vs. Corrupt Segmentation” talks about how segmentation is needed to organize groups of people based on their shared needs, interests, and experiences and points out that corrupt segmentation “…are arguably inauthentic because they do not reflect the genuine interests or identities of individuals within a given segment” (Gandy page 133.)  For me, this brought to mind the most recent Presidential election here in the U.S. and how both the Republican and Democratic parties targeted specific audiences to gain popularity, favor, and their vote but in the end neither candidates’ podiums were honest.

Discrimination occurs in more than face to face interactions but is insidious within such a capitalistic society.  Targeted marketing has created and perpetuated two class types, rich and poor, and has made upward movement in class extremely hard for those in underserved and lacking communities.  No matter how emotionless the terms are, the mistreatment of non-white Americans was begun by white people and now those values are reflected in computer-generated information, despite the fact that computers are machines.

The Dark Side of Social Media

If you’ve ever wondered why you seem some material and not other on your social media feeds, this article tells you about it.  Not that it talks about what actually makes it to your feed, but what *doesn’t* make it is the nitty gritty of this article.  We all know that the multiple platforms of FB, Twitter, YouTube, etc…are all moderated because of the option to report offensive posts/responses, but who can honestly say they’ve thought about the horrific and/or terrifying content that we don’t see on a daily basis because of the people who, for one reason or another, are content moderators?

If you had told me before I read this article that some moderators are medically handled like they have PTSD, I probably would have raised an eyebrow with a “pfft, you’re kidding me,” which in light of the information in “The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed” is a totally innapropriate response.  Logically speaking, I know that there are sick people out there who do sadistic things and put it online, yet I still find it disturbing to know that those people are out there.  And there are people who are paid, and in paltry amounts if they’re based outside of the U.S., to look at this stuff and then decide what course of action to take.  Oftentimes it’s easy to see and know which content needs to be trashed post-haste, but sometimes it’s more of a fine line in determing what the purpose of the post is, like the story of the 18 year old male who may have posted the “hidden desire” or the “hook up request” for a “gay experience.”  I think that sort of decision making could lay in a really morally grey area that could be troubling if a person thought they made the wrong decision about their final say in what it was.  Especially when it’s a line that moderators toe day in/out for weeks, months, and sometimes years.  It’s definitely a job that would make you question whether humanity really does have any business surviving when such dark and disturbing posts happen on an hourly basis.

Another thing that kind of caught my attention when reading this was the fact that there are people who are literally being tasked with informing Americans what was “newsworthy.”  Instead of cable news, or online news groups bearing the responsibility of communicating news to viewers, it was the moderators at Google who, in 2010, were the ones that were told to allow specific content on platforms despite the posts breaking content guidelines.  Not only is that a heavy responsibility for people to bear, but I think in a way it’s dishonest (or irresponsible?) of a company to break it’s own rules regarding post contents, to basically get people to click a link/picture/video.  IMHO, it’s one thing for the public at large to pick up a rally cry, so to speak, about civil rights issues an/or other equality issues because of a set(s) of regularly allowed posts, kind of like how BLM brings issues into conversation; it’s different when a company is the motivating factor in what “news” is and how it’s conveyed to us, the consumers of that content.

The End

Though I found myself interested in the way Wade claimed the Easter Egg, I still felt the last 100+ pages of reading were just cliché and anti-climactic in a couple of ways.  Wade finally figures out the second gate and receives the Crystal Key, and then allows himself to be arrested to defeat the Sixers from within, so to speak, finds out about his one true love (and oh yeah, saves her life,) defeats The Big Bad, and finally makes his claim on fame and fortune with the Easter Egg (because of course only HE would think to play that Pac-Man game and pick up the quarter artifact that had no clear purpose.)  Sarcasm aside, I thought the pacing of the last chunk of the book improved from the middle portion, where so much of the narrative was the love story of Art3mis and Wade, so I appreciated that at least.

One of my biggest beefs with this book continued through to the end of the book: girl gamers are Unicorns, females are damsels in distress or liars, and oop –  girls on the internet don’t exist.  I thought it was a bit ironic that “hardcore” Gunters refused to help/be helped in the quest for the Easter Egg, but at the end of the day, in order to pass through the castle gate on Chthonia, cooperation was imperative and the two who turned their keys with Wade were Art3mis and Aech, two hardcore female gamers.

I think one of the most important parts of this book though, was relegated to pages 321 and 322 and though it was written in 2011 the social commentary that is derived from a couple of short paragraphs is relevant now, in 2017:

“In Marie’s opinion, the OASIS was the best thing that had ever happened to both women and people of color.  From the very start, Marie had used a white male avatar to conduct all of her online business, because of the marked difference it made in how she was treated and the opportunities she was given.” (Cline, pg 320.)

I mean, is it really the best thing ever if the best course of action, for the “best” results, is to lie about who you are?  What Cline has implied, in the briefest way possible, is that in the year 2045 it’s still best to be a white male; this idea isn’t even hidden in his writing, it’s just right out there for everyone to see though I he was really thinking about social commentary at all when he was writing this book.  Add in the fact that Aech/Helen just followed her mother’s advice without much thought, and it’s kind of a kick in the face to the people who for decades have fought for equal rights/treatment/pay, particularly African Americans.  Seriously Cline just set back the Civil Rights movement about 70 years or so.

As far as reading this book for fun, I think mission accomplished.  But for a university to select it as the common freshmen reading book?  Especially in light of current civil affairs with people still fighting to be recognized and treated respectfully and rightly, I don’t see how this book is relevant compared to “Garbology,” “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” or “Just Mercy.”  Lets be real, the university picked it up because Steven Spielberg is turning it into a movie.