Crowds - From Crowd sourcing to Anonymous

“Right now we are leaving about half of the good ideas on the table for lack of resources." I found this article for the NBC news health section about ALS research funding exceptionally interesting. Maggie Fox paints a picture of how the ALS bucket challenge and things similar to it really don’t cure anything in the long run. Even though the ALS Association raised 42 million dollars over the year from the ice bucket challenge, this money won’t last. It won’t fund the long-term research that really needs to be done to find a cure. “These flash-in-the pan things that will go away after a few months will not help ALS in the long run. Researchers need dependable money,” says Dr. Jonathan Serody of the University of North Carolina. He describes that in order for there to be a real change towards discovering a cure people need to consistently send money every year as opposed to just one time. Unfortunately, this money that was donated for ALS research, even though it may seem like a lot, won’t last to make significant strides. In addition to this, Fox talks about how the research budgets are being greatly decreased, specifically by a third over the last decade. This is sad because that means that the resources that are needed to carry on stem cell and gene research are just not available. However, it is stressed that doing things like the ALS challenge definitely don’t go to a complete waste. In some cases hopefully it brings attention to the disease and people will get invested, learn more, and continue to donate to the cause. Basically, the best thing you can do is donate as much as you can annually instead of just once. I’ve wondered about this a lot so it was interesting to read up on.

Open Access to knowledge/Archives

Something I found really interesting in this week's material on the topic of open access to knowledge is the trailer for "The Internet's Own Boy." I found the trailer really ominous and interesting so I ended up actually watching the film to see what it was really about and I was totally transfixed. It's a really messed up tale about Aaron Swartz, the creator of Reddit, who was a programming prodigy and information activist. He ends up taking his own life at the young age of twenty-six because he finds himself in some legal trouble as a result of trying to set information free. What he did specifically was hack into MIT's system and illegally download academic journal articles from JSTOR, which is a scholarly database I'm sure we all have used, to set free to the public. He was charged for a number of things, facing 35 years in prison and a million dollars worth of fines. But his mission was an innocent one in my opinion. He felt strongly that it is plainly bullshit that we have to pay money to gain access to knowledge. Which is totally true. When you think of kids that don't have the money to get the information they need for papers and projects, etc.; how is that really fair at all? PACER charges eight cents per page of information that should be free.The saying that knowledge is power is very true and unfortunately it is the rich people of the world that gain this power but shouldn't necessarily have it. It is honestly ridiculous and it's very sad that this man had to die because of all the anxiety that was put on him as result of this. In his short life he did a lot of great things and if he were still alive I'm sure we would've benefitted from his mind. 

Web of Introverts or Social Webs

In Sherry Turkle’s Ted Talk, “Connected, but alone?” he is talking about something totally prevalent in our society today. It is so interesting that we are glued to our devices – we are essentially addicted. But what’s really crazy is as hyper-connected as our world is today we keep each other at a distance with these technologies. Even with Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms, we can’t get enough of each other, but we at a distance and when we are in control of the quantity. This is what Turkle calls the ‘Goldilocks Effect.’ Turkle admits that she is just as sucked in my texting and her phone just as much as the next person. She uniquely opens her talk with telling the audience that she received a text from her daughter wishing her good luck. She recognizes that these technologies have become totally vital to our existence today and to just get rid of them would be moving backwards. She says that instead we need to learn how to control as opposed to just eradicating it. What Turkle does propose is that instead we learn how to control how these technologies control us. ‘Alone together’ is a term to describe when we are with each other but our phones are taking us somewhere else. I’m sure we have all scene people that are out to dinner together but are all on their phones. And I know I have been guilty of this. She later brings up an interesting idea that we need to learn how to be alone without technology. We use phones as a way of not having to deal with out thoughts or what is in front of us. What we need to really do is use technology as a way to become more self aware of how technology is affecting us and become more present in reality.

Open Source and Copyright

In this Ted Talk, Lawrence Lessig is talking about read/write creativity and it’s effect on our society and our generation. Read/write is a culture where consumers (us) can also create in addition to just consuming what is put out there. You and me can respond and make something new. I specifically like what he says at the end of his lecture; “as we see what this technology can do we need to recognize you can’t kill the instinct that technology produces, you can only criminalize it.” I also like how he says that copyright laws force or motivate people to create more because I have seen this to be true. By remixing he means we take things that are one thing and remix them to be something slightly or completely different. We can use our creativity to take an idea and make it our own by remixing it into something unique. He says how this isn’t a hard thing to do as long as you have access to a computer because this is essentially the digital ages form of “writing.” This is how our generation does things. I’m sure we have all seen silly remixes and mashups on YouTube that have gone viral. Larry Lessig is arguing here that artists make their work more available. He thinks that content should grow and expand and that we should have the opportunity for our generation to grow. But unfortunately we live in an era where we are seen as pirates because of the unnecessarily stringent copyright laws. Now, Lessig isn’t saying we should plagiarize or go into a movie theater and film something to pretend it is our own. What he is saying is that we should have the ability to use certain content that is on the web create our own version.

Online regulation & Algorithms & Information Silos

I found the Ted talk by Eli Pariser about filter bubbles especially interesting. I think I found this discussion so interesting because it is something that is so prevalent in our daily lives online. Every day we use Google, log on to Facebook and every day our feeds are filtered by what the web thinks we are interested in. This excessive filtering edits out things we don’t click on a lot, making it so that our feed is designed for us specifically. And while this is good in a way it is also limiting us from seeing things we might want to see but we don’t even know we are interested in, because we aren’t given the chance to choose. It is automatically filtered out and we are living in this bubble. If we are caught in this bubble it makes it so that we aren’t being exposed to challenging things and different points of view on the Internet. Pariser says, “Algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life - of civic responsibility.” The Internet should be a place that connects us - that introduces us to new ideas, people, and perspectives. It’s a shame that these filter bubbles are essentially isolating us from the world because they think they know what we want to see. We don’t have the control anymore. I have experienced this filter bubble with Facebook because I have noticed that the posts I like or click on are the ones that keep showing up on my feed. It might filter out other people that I might be interested in but won’t get a chance to see. Just because I like one thing a lot doesn’t mean I don’t want to be exposed to other stuff. The internet is like your cocky older brother that thinks it knows all.

Activism and Disobedience

In this week's readings the main theme we are looking at is the idea that the media is a form of activism. This meaning that by sharing information of social media sites like twitter and Facebook can actually make a change in our world. But this thought is only true to a certain extent. In an article for BCC news written by Kate Dailey called, "Kony2012: The Rise of Online Campaigning," she rightfully explains that it is impossible for the spreading of this Kony video is going to make any real impact. I remember that some people promoting this campaign actually came to my high school during my senior year and I saw this 30-minute documentary they made. Sure, it made people feel something and want to stand up for social and political justice, but what are we honestly supposed to do for these refugees? We simply don’t have the power, and it is much more complicated then they made it seem. Then, Dailey mentioned how some campaigns work such as a social media effort that pulled advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show after he called a student a slut because she was advocating for insurance for birth control. In smaller cases like this, I believe it is possible to do some social and political good. But in bigger cases, there is definitely a difference between making people aware of something and actually making a change. Sure, everyone knows Kony’s name, but did anything happen more then it was a trending topic on twitter? I don’t think so. In conclusion, I think social media is a good place to spread awareness, but not exactly a platform for change.

Controlling Public Space

One of the readings we were assigned this week that I found particularly interesting was the piece written by Robert Rosenberger called, "How Cities Use Design to Drive Homeless People Away." I have definitely seen these types of designs such as the ground spikes that were shown in the article when I have been in New York. I never really thought much of them until reading more about it and seeing how many people were passionate about abolishing these spikes that were designed to prevent homeless people from sleeping or sitting. I'd have to say that if I were proposed to sign this petition to remove the ground spikes, I would absolutely be on board with the 130,000 people that signed the petition. I find it pretty disgusting that someone or a group of people thought it was necessary to create these spikes to keep homeless people away. I definitely understand that people like to keep their neighborhoods nice and when you are walking in a city and see homeless people it is not always pleasing because it can be upsetting, but that does not give you the right to dictate where they can or cannot take some form of shelter. I think people should be spending their time and money on finding homeless people actual homes as opposed to spending their time and money on projects like making benches purposefully uncomfortable. I think it just a really crass, inhumane and uncompassionate way to be spending your money. If these people, instead decided to help homeless people find shelter and help them off the streets they could be making a better living environment for everyone. The world needs to remember that homeless people are humans too, they are not garbage, and they do not deserve to be treated as such.