Project 3 Draft - Generation DotNet

            The Internet has become the communication and information medium of choice. As a result, many American students are less and less able to read and analyze, or to write with purpose and clarity. They have been subject to the “morbid symptoms” of the change to a proto-electronic society where the Internet is capable of conditioning sense and sensibilities (Birkerts). The Net has become our medium of choice for storing, processing, and sharing information and as author Nicholas Carr describes, “a new intellectual ethic is taking hold. The pathways in our brains are once again being rerouted” (Carr 77). The Internet is reweaving our social and cultural web and in turn, it has negatively affected the intellectual capabilities of many Internet users across the country in particular, Generation Y, or Generation DotNet.

            Among the world’s most influential minds, renowned scientists, authors, and literary critics have discussed the potential impact of the Internet on intelligence. In The Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts fears that our educational systems are in decline, as many students are less able to read and comprehend texts and test scores are falling at an alarming rate. Thus, he describes language erosion, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self as issues related to the use of technology. Language erosion results from fewer students reading books while historical perspective is “flattened” due to students viewing the past with only one perspective and as irrelevant to the future. Also, the connectedness of the Net contributes to the “electronic collectivization” which Birkerts believes has fueled the loss of the individuated self among young people, the loss of autonomy (Birkerts). Similarly, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard University thinks that the lives and minds of young people are fragmented as the plethora of connections, networks, and messages results in less stable identities in which “times for reflection, introspection, solitude are scarce” (Brockman 276). In addition to Birkerts and Gardner, Haim Harari, an Israeli theoretical physicist, believes that the Internet has made three significant changes to peoples’ thoughts. First, messages have become terse due to social networking, texting and e-mail. Second, the role of factual knowledge in the thinking process has diminished. The importance of factual knowledge has decreased because the Internet enables users to access facts quickly through sites such as Wikipedia and Google. Third, Harari thinks that the Internet has altered the process of teaching and learning. The use of technology in the classrooms “may create an entirely different pattern of knowledge, understanding, and thinking in the student” (Brockman 239). As human reliance on technology and the Internet increases, it has been hypothesized that there is a negative effect on human intelligence. The hypothesis is supported by thorough research completed by Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation, and data released from national surveys.

            In The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlein discusses the effect of the digital age on Generation Y, specifically on young Americans who are uninterested and actively cut off from world realities. As many students spend countless hours on the Web, their level of intelligence is not increasing because “the web is a consumer habitat, not an educational one” (Bauerlein 149). Many young Americans lack knowledge in history, civics, math/science/technology, and fine arts. There is zero benefit to spending hours on Facebook or other social networking sites, as these sites have no knowledge aims at all. In 2004, the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the percentage of seventeen-year-olds who “never or hardly ever” read for enjoyment had more than doubled from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004 (Department of Education, United States). The more a person doesn’t read, the more a person can’t read and the intellectual development of the young mind will stall. Also, research has supported that children who grow up in homes with many books receive three years more schooling than children from bookless homes. This study, in which parents’ education occupation, and socioeconomic class were held constant, suggests that the presence of books in homes has significant educational benefits (Kelley et al.). In addition, the Chronicle of Higher Education released data from a 2006 survey of college professors, which found that only 6 percent of the professors surveyed believed that entering students were “very well prepared in writing” (Chronicle of Higher Education). It is evident that the changes in technology have led to new patterns of thinking, especially in reading and writing among young people. 

            Why do students choose not to read? Why are students’ writing skills inadequate? The Internet has likely contributed to the creation of these flaws. When writing a paper, students frequently turn immediately to the Internet to check for existing information instead of pursuing new thoughts through imagination. Thus, the Net satisfies immediate needs at the expense of deeper thinking and understanding. Also, the creation of Microsoft Word and spell-check prevent the improvement of a student’s writing skills. A blog post on the USA Today blog, “Generation Next,” said that young people today suffer from “e-literacy,” as “we can’t spell and we don’t know synonyms because there’s less need to know. What smart person would devote hours to learning words that can be accessed at the click of a button? Spell-check can spell. Shift +F7 produces synonyms” (Bauerlein 66). Thus, people's writing and thinking skills are deteriorating as their reliance on spell-check and the Internet grows exponentially. In addition to studies related to reading and writing, the theories of well-known critics and authors as well as scientific research studies have proven that the Internet has affected the neurological pathways of the human brain.

            The Internet has affected humanity, as neurological studies have provided evidence that it can restructure neural pathways, affecting cognition. Even though the long-term neurological and psychological experiments about how Internet use affects cognition are currently being conducted, published research suggests that the Net is changing the way we read and think. In a recently published study of online research habits, as part of a five-year research program experimenters examined computer logs. The logs documented the behavior of the site visitors on two websites that provided access to e-books, journal articles, and other written information. The results indicated that the visitors skimmed frequently, switched from one source to another and generally read no more than one or two pages of a source before switching to another site. The researchers concluded that these Internet users are not reading online in the traditional sense, instead they “‘power browse.’” (Carr). Unfortunately, when people read online, they become “‘mere decoders of information,’ our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged” (Carr). Due to the brain elasticity of humans, the Internet’s instant availability and overload of information has the potential to reprogram people at a biological level.

              In 2007 Gary Small, a UCLA professor of psychiatry conducted a study with 24 volunteers. Half the participants used the Internet daily while the other half had little experience with the technology. The participants performed Internet searches while undergoing fMRI scans which recorded changes in brain activity. After the initial scan, the participants spent one hour a day for seven days over a two-week period on the Internet. Then, the participants received a second scan and the fMRI results indicated activation in new brain regions for the inexperienced participants, regions related to working memory and decision-making. After a brief period of time the inexperienced participants had rewired their brains, as they demonstrated activation patterns similar to those who used the Internet daily (Champeau). This study shows how quickly and extensively the Net is able to restructure people’s neural pathways. Small concluded “the current explosion of digital technology is not only changing the way we live and communicate, but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains” (Small). However, as the Internet leads to extensive brain activity, humans may be subject to cognitive overload. The psychological term cognitive load refers to the information flowing into our working memory. If the information load exceeds the brain’s ability to process and store it, the information will not be retained or be connected to other memories. Extensive brain activity may lead to cognitive overload, which prevents humans from converting new information into conceptual knowledge (Carr). In 2005, psychologists at Carelton University found that “the increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in the hypertext impaired reading performance…many features of the hypertext resulted in increased cognitive load” (DeStefano & LeFevre). In addition to cognitive overload, science reveals the actual effects that Internet use is having on the way many of our minds work.

            In contrast to the research studies that have indicated the Internet negatively influences human cognition, technophiles such as Ray Kurzweil and Nicholas Negroponte believe that the Internet is enhancing not degrading human intelligence. A research study at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies found that Internet use helps humans to develop “fluid intelligence – the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge” (Anderson). This research study supports that the Internet and its resources can shift cognitive capacities. Humans won’t have to remember as much information, but will have to improve critical thinking and analytical skills, as less time will be spent memorizing information. In addition, Ray Kurzweil, an American author, inventor, and futurist believes that machines will attain human-level intelligence and humans will become transhumanists, incorporating more technology to become more intelligent. Similarly, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT’s Media Lab and the One Laptop per Child Association (OLPC) supports the use of technology. Negroponte wrote the bestselling book Being Digital and he is a digital optimist who believes that the Internet will improve human life. One of OLPC’s projects was to provide computers to children in developing countries, as Negroponte believes that computers are “a window into the world and a tool with which to think (Trafton). They are a wonderful way for all children to ‘learn learning’ through independent interaction and exploration” (Trafton). As is evident, there are arguments in favor of technology and Internet use, as it has the potential to improve human intelligence. However, the results of many research studies support that the Internet is negatively affecting human cognition.

            Many studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, educators, and Web designers about the effects of the Internet on how humans think all point to the same conclusion: “when we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning” (Carr 115). The Internet can serve as an interruption system, as it scatters human attention. As people use the Net, they will often glance at their email inbox to check for new messages or stop reading an article in order to check Facebook. These breaks in a person’s concentration will burden their working memory, influencing cognition. In 2009, Patricia Greenfield, a developmental psychologist reviewed over 40 studies of the effects of different types of media on intelligence and learning ability. The studies supported that media weakens human ability for critical understanding and underpins “mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection” (Greenfield). Similarly, Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke’s Stanford School of Public Policy recently examined computer use among a half-million 5th through 8th grade students in North Carolina. They found that the use of home computers and Internet access were correlated to considerable declines in math and reading scores. The online world, which as Cory Doctorow describes as an “ecosystem of interruption technologies,” has contributed to student’s lower test stores (Vigdor, Ladd). Even though the Internet allows its users instant access to immense amounts of information, it is turning us into shallow, easily distracted thinkers. 

             The Internet has negatively influenced the attention-span and the ability to foster ideas among many of its users. As Nicholas Carr describes, “what we’re experiencing is, in a metaphorical sense, a reversal of the early trajectory of civilization: we are evolving from being cultivators of personal knowledge to being hunters and gatherers in the electronic data forest” (Carr 135). As humans navigate the Web, every time they shift their attention, their brain has to reorient itself, which strains mental resources. In particular, the Google search engine serves as a distraction to Internet users. It will continue to encourage users to click as often as possible, as it gains hold of our intellectual lives. “Hyperlinks are designed to grab our attention. Their value as navigational tools is inextricable from the distraction they cause” (Carr 90). It is impossible to be attentive and learn when a person is distracted from distraction by distraction as they click from site to site. As a result, the Net’s abundance of stimuli undermines human thought, which prevents the ability to think with creativity and attentiveness. In addition, many people visit too many websites and receive too many messages while feeling overwhelmed by everything that is occurring online. Many users lack the ability to manage their time properly in the face of this plethora of information. Thus, this makes people constantly unfocused, distracted and less able to complete intellectually demanding tasks.

            “As revolutionary as it may be, the Net is best understood as the latest in a long series of tools that have helped mold the human mind” (Carr 115). Unfortunately, the Internet has not necessarily molded the human mind in a positive respect. Among Generation Y, the evidence cited in this paper confirms that for most young Internet users, “the Web hasn’t made them better readers and writers, sharper interpreters and more discerning critics, more knowledgeable citizens and tasteful consumers” (Bauerlein 110); instead, the Internet may be the greatest enemy to deep thinking since the invention of the television. The United States needs the Millennials to become intelligent men and women who aspire to be strong and wise political and military leaders, journalists, teachers, judges, scholars, critics, and artists. The future resides in Generation Y or Generation DotNet and it is imperative to prevent the influence of the “morbid symptoms” of the Internet in this proto-electronic era.          

Works Cited:

Anderson, Janna, and Lee Rainie. "Does Google Make Us Stupid?" Pew Internet & American Life 

            Project (2010).

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age.

            Winchester: Faber and Faber, 1994.
Big Think. Entrepreneurship: The New Liberal Arts?. Ray Kurzweil. Big Think. Web

Brockman, John. Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?: The Net’s Impact on Our

            Minds and Future. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

Brooks, David. "The Medium Is the Medium." The New York Times 2010. The New York

            Times. Web.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York:

            W.W. Norton, 2010.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic (2008). The Atlantic. July

            2008. Web.

Champeau, Rachel. "First-time Internet Users Find Boost in Brain Function After Just One Week."   

            UCLA Newsroom (2009).

Chronicle of Higher Education. “What Professors and Teachers Think: A Perception Gap over 

            Students’ Preparation” (10 Mar 2006).

Department of Education, United States. NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of 

            Performance in Reading and Mathematics (2005).

Greenfield, Patricia M. "Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What Is Learned." 

            Science 323.5910: 69-71.            

Kelley, Jonathan, Joanna Sikora, and Donald Treiman. "Family Scholarly Culture and Educational 

            Success: Books and Schooling in 27 Nations." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 

            28.2 (2010): 171-97. SciVerse. Web.

Small, Gary. "Meet Your IBrain." Scientific American (2008).

Trafton, Anne. "$100 Laptop Idea Taking Off." MIT News. 5 Oct. 2005. Web.

Vigdor, Jacob L., and Helen F. Ladd. "Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and 

            Student Achievement." The National Bureau of Economic Research (2010).

Be Connected. Feel Connected. Stay Connected

            As I watched “The Social Network,” I learned about Mark Zuckerberg, ConnectU, the Winklevoss twins, and the history and development of Facebook. What do I now think of Mark Zuckerberg? Yes, he is impressive as a visionary, a great entrepreneur and the youngest billionaire. Yet, for someone who created a social networking website, he doesn’t have commendable social skills. In fact, during his Harvard years, he was an asshole. It was immoral for him to mistreat his girlfriend from Boston University and lie multiple times to the Winklevoss twins. (Although, I wouldn’t be complaining if I were one of the Winklevoss twins, as they will probably successfully sue Zuckerberg for another $140 million.) However, despite Zuckerberg’s past decisions, I believe that he deserves credit for Facebook’s developments and improvements since its creation in 2004.

            Today, Facebook connects the entire world with its 600 million active users. As someone who often uses this site, I see both advantages and disadvantages to Facebook. I appreciate this site because it allows me to connect with friends who attend other colleges or who live abroad. I am able to keep in touch with friends who live in Africa and Europe without having to pay for long distance phone calls. In addition, Facebook helps create a sense of community on my college campus. When clubs/organizations create events, a large percentage of the study body will receive an invitation on Facebook. This generates awareness and as a result, hundreds of students will attend a cappella concerts, fundraisers, guest speakers or pep rallies.       

            Even though Facebook has its advantages in allowing millions of people to communicate daily, the question becomes: how connected is too connected? When I look at my friends Facebook profiles, many of them have between 500-1500 friends. You simply can’t have 1,000 close friends. And there can be negative effects from accepting friend requests from acquaintances or strangers – What if it is a potential employer? What if it is a pedophile? You never know. Unfortunately, some people use social networking sites to cyberbully others anonymously. Or, a potential employer might see photos of you engaging in illegal activity such as, underage drinking and decide not to hire you. It is important for all Facebook users to be aware of the potential dangers in revealing personal information and images on the Internet.   

            Overall, I believe that Mark Zuckerberg has created a wonderful site in which people are able to easily connect. However, there is no face-to-face in Facebook. The importance of real human interaction cannot be forgotten. 

Embrace Imperfection

            The Transhumanist Declaration states “humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future.” After reading books, novels, essays, and articles for my first-year seminar Cyberspace, I am certain that this statement is true, as technology will continue to become more prevalent in our lives. I am not opposed to all technology because I use my computer, cell phone, and iPod daily. However, I disapprove of artificial intellects, modified life forms, the elimination of aging, enhancing human intellectuality, and improving physical and psychological abilities. We are born as unique human beings with wonderfully different characteristics. Someone may not be athletic but they excel elsewhere, maybe in the classroom. Dwight Howard may be the perfect specimen of a human being, but even he frequently misses free throws. In our world, no one is perfect. I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of humanity.

                                                                              

            

             In the future, the world may be filled with humans who are perfect. A world where every human being has the maximum intellectuality, physical, and psychological capacities. Why would anyone want to live in a world where every human is the same? The only reason that I would ever support this transhumanist ideal is so that the pursuit to end poverty in third world countries would be complete. Otherwise, I would never want to live in a world without cultural and intellectual diversity, as unique differences and perspectives make life interesting. I would be bored if I lived in a world where everyone was identical. In addition, I question why any person would want to be immortal. Aging is part of the life cycle and I think that it's unethical to alter physical and intellectual human traits.

            Even though I am not a fan of transhumanism, I respect Humanity+. The non-profit is dedicated to the ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities. It supports the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In the Transhumanist Declaration, Humanity+ favors allowing individuals personal choice over how they enable their lives and firmly supports the reduction of risks in order to preserve life and health. I think that this non-profit deserves admiration for their commitment to the ethical use of technology to enhance the human condition. However, as these technologies develop, Humanity+ will not be performing human enhancements or be able to ensure every procedure is ethical and risk free. Will the scientists and the companies who create these new technologies act in their best interest or in the best interest of humanity?       

Project 3 Proposal

            As Internet users’ reliance on information from sources such as Google and Wikipedia increases, the deep thinking that enables true human creativity is being compromised. After I read Sven Birkert’s Into the Electronic Millennium, I pondered his concern that in our “proto-electronic” society, negative human developments would occur. Birkerts discusses the potential waning of the private self, flattening of historical perspectives, and language erosion among technology users. Thus, I was inspired to research the impacts of the Internet on human intelligence and on our culture, as I fear that negative effects may in fact already exist. Previously, I had read articles that indicated that the Internet can lead to a lower attention span making it more difficult for people to read traditional books without interruptions. Also, the vast number of hyperlinks and the immense amount of information on the web can lead to overstimulation, which can hurt a person’s long-term memory. In contrast, I have read articles supporting Internet use because it is actually increasing human intelligence. So, who is correct? What is the Internet doing to our brains? Does the Internet have a negative or positive effect on the human brain function? This is one critical question that I will be able to answer after extensive research. Also, if as Cory Doctorow asserts the computer is an “ecosystem of interruption technologies,” is the Internet destroying our powers of concentration? Do the negative side effects of the Internet outweigh its efficiencies? It may be challenging to answer certain critical questions, as it is difficult to find statistics to support the thesis that I will create. For example, I used the APA PsychNET database and I couldn’t find a psychological study proving that Internet use influences intelligence. However, based on the sources that I have found, I believe that I will develop a thesis in which I will support the claim that the Internet does have a negative impact on human intellect and that we, as a society, deserve cultural criticism.    

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age.

            Winchester: Faber and Faber, 1994.

Sven Birkerts writes about the loss of books, literature, reading, history, culture, language, and the sense of self. In his collection of essays, he discusses the connection between reading and the self as he questions how modifications in our traditional way of reading affect our intellectual life. He believes that many people in our “proto-electronic” society have been impacted by negative developments such as, the waning of the private self, flattening of historical perspective, and language erosion. I plan to research whether there is a specific correlation between Internet use and these negative developments. If a correlation is found, the research will support my thesis.

Brockman, John. Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?: The Net’s Impact on Our

            Minds and Future. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

           

How is the Internet changing the way you think? This question is relevant today and it will affect many aspects of our life and the future. John Brockman posed this question to more than 150 of the world’s most influential minds. Philosophers, scientists, professors, authors, psychologists, sociologists, and other intellectuals answered this question. This book will be a helpful resource because it will provide unique answers and different perspectives. Brockman’s research will allow me to analyze both the negative and positive ways in which the Internet is changing the way we think. 

Brooks, David. "The Medium Is the Medium." The New York Times 2010. The New York

            Times. Web.

In this article, David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times, illustrates the tremendous power of books. Studies have proven that children who grow up with books stay in school longer and perform better. In addition, a recent study found that the use of computers and the Internet among a half-million middle school students was correlated to significant declines in math and reading scores. Brooks discusses the Internet versus books debate as the two different cultures foster extremely different types of learning. Brooks' analysis as well as the studies presented in this article will help me to understand the effect of Internet use on human intelligence.          

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York:

            W.W. Norton, 2010.

I am interested in learning whether the effects of the Internet are predominantly negative or positive. Nicholas Carr’s book criticizes the information technology revolution, as he strongly believes that the negative side effects of the Internet outweigh its efficiencies. Carr looks to neurological science to determine the impact of computers, citing experiments that contrast the power of books with the power of the Internet. He successfully criticizes our culture for entering the realm of the Web as it's filled with interruption and distraction, effecting comprehension and retention. Carr believes that the Internet is reconfiguring our brains and I would like to know specifically how and if the Net is effecting concentration. 

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic (2008). The Atlantic. July

            2008. Web.

Often, as people send e-mails, scan headlines, blog, watch videos, and click from link to link on the Net, the vast amount of information available provides food for thought, but also shapes the process of thought. Nicholas Carr believes that the Internet is diminishing human capacity for concentration and contemplation. Carr provides examples of people whose mental habits have been altered by the Internet as people resort to “power browsing.” Carr argues that although Google may seem to be the perfect search engine with the world’s information easily accessible, it hasn't made humans more productive thinkers. This article analyzes how the Internet is changing the way we read and think, which is applicable to my research, as I am interested in the negative impacts of the Net. 

Carr, Nicholas. "The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains." Wired 2010. Wired. Web.

A remarkable experiment conducted at UCLA proved that after spending five hours on the Internet, subjects had rewired their brains. This study reveals how quickly and extensively Internet use reroutes people’s neural pathways. Studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, and educators support the claim that the Internet promotes brief reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. The Internet is turning many of us into shallower thinkers and literally altering the structure of our brain. Carr discusses how the Internet serves as an interruption system and affects our long-term memory. He provides a counter-argument in which he states that not all mental consequences of the Net are bad. This source allows me to see both the pros and cons of Internet use on human intellect, which is important for my research paper.  

The Loss of Individuality

            As millions of college students, including myself, use the Internet each day to access academic assignments, network socially, read newspapers or play online games, we contribute to the creation of a “proto-electronic” social and cultural society. Unfortunately, as Sven Birkerts discusses in Is Cyberspace Destroying Society? and Into the Electronic Millennium, this society has “morbid symptoms,” one of which is a loss of sense of self.  As my friends and I allow the Internet to permeate every aspect of our lives, Birkerts believes that we are losing our individuality.

            Connectedness and communication are two principle reasons that college students use the Internet. We are more interested in becoming collectively linked selves than individuals, and Birkerts believes that we are in “the first stages of a process of social collectivization that will over time all but vanquish the idea of isolated individuality” (Birkerts).  He argues that in order to develop as an individual, a person needs to spend time alone. However, since college students feel the need to be constantly connected, we no longer take the time to visit a museum on our own or to read a book. According to Birkerts, reading is essential, as a book “constitutes a means of transportation through the space of experience…in the direction of autonomy, in the direction of privacy” (Birkerts). A book will foster intellectual growth or inspire a newfound passion; however, it should not be read on Sparknotes or other online summaries as this destroys the experience. Likewise, Birkerts emphasizes that my friends and I should stop communicating through the Internet and instead speak face-to-face, as “language is the soul’s ozone layer, and we thin it at our peril” (Birkerts). Having conversations in person allows for individual growth as you subject yourself to peoples’ moral, intellectual, and global perspectives as well as their emotional responses. Email and Facebook messaging have no soul compared to real human interaction.

            Are we in a movement toward “electronic collectivization” with a loss of individuality? Quite possibly. How do we prevent Birkerts’ fear that we will have no idea of what wisdom might be or where it might be found in the future? We engage in the experiential continuum that the educational theorist John Dewey discusses in Exploration & Experience. We read and analyze influential books. We engage in face-to-face dialogue with professors and friends. We explore the cultural diversity in the world as we find our passion and our purpose. My search, and that of my friends, cannot be achieved through the Internet.

Works Cited:

Birkerts, Sven. "Into the Electronic Millennium." Boston Review. Oct. 1991. Web.

Foretold by History (Project 2 Final)

“This time is different: with everything on one network, the potential power to control is so much greater” (Wu 318).

            If you type in Yahoo.com or Google.com and press enter, the Internet opens up before you. Suddenly, this world founded on the principle of net neutrality abdicates control to the individual. In The Master Switch, Tim Wu, creator of the term “net neutrality,” discusses the power of potential monopolies such as Google and Apple and the threat they pose to the future neutrality of the Internet. Wu fearfully claims that “the future of Apple and Google will form the future of America and the world” because these companies will continue to determine how Americans and the rest of the world share information (Wu 273). In contrast, William Gibson in Neuromancer envisions the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace as a habitable place, with all the world’s data represented as visual, even palpable structures arranged in a matrix. He depicts a world where the individual could be more powerful than monopolies. Who is right?  I believe that Wu’s prediction of the destruction of net neutrality is more likely to occur than Gibson’s prediction of a future “consensual hallucination” as the power of Google and Apple, the design of the Internet, and Wu’s decision to join the federal government illustrate the imminent possibility of a closed system.

            Wu’s fear that the power of Google and Apple, coupled with the design of the Internet, could end net neutrality in the future is valid. The Internet is “operated by a finite number of firms upon whose good behavior the whole thing depends” (Wu 317). Thus, there is a risk of losing the Internet’s diversity of content and services because it is vulnerable to centralization by a powerful firm, and Google and Apple are examples of dominant firms that just might have that power. Wu considers Google to be “the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch” (Wu 279). In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googlization of Everything, he claims that we allow Google, which qualifies as a monopoly because its market share of the search business is over 65 percent, “to determine what is important, relevant, and true…whatever shows up on the first page of a Google search is what matters in forming our sense of any reality” (Wu 281).  Fortunately, Google currently operates as an open information system, providing customers with choice and freedom. However, given that the company is public and must answer to its shareholders, Google may in the future choose to pursue decisions that serve its best economic interest at the expense of net neutrality.

           Similar to Google, Apple is a large, powerful company that could destroy net neutrality by monopolizing the Internet. The App Store enables Apple to decide what content is available to consumers on the iPhone, the iPad, and the iTouch. Also, Apple might eventually control the content consumers have access to online. Tom Conlon of Popular Science asserts, “once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly” (Conlon). As Wu describes, “net neutrality is what prevents the telephone and cable industry from killing Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, blogs…” as well as Google from destroying Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines (Wu 286). How does Wu propose to stop the potential domination of Google and Apple in order to save net neutrality?  Through his “Separations Principle” which proposes a constitutional approach to the information economy where all power that derives from the control of information is constrained and divided in order to avoid the perils of a closed system.

            If Wu’s fear that net neutrality may end seems imminent, in contrast, Gibson’s prediction of the “consensual hallucination” and the dissolution of governments seems light years away. However, it should be noted that some of Gibson’s predictions in Neuromancer have come true or may soon come true. For example, Gibson’s networked artificial matrix of cyberspace has come to represent everything from computers and information technology to the Internet. In addition, Gibson’s concept of “jacking in” to a 3-D world using electrodes and neural interfaces may not be far off, as researchers at Brown University have used human thoughts to move a cursor across a computer screen (Brown University). Even so, the virtual worlds that we have today do not even remotely compare to the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace that Gibson envisions in Neuromancer. He creates the Simstim, a sensory experience where one person can view the world through another’s eyes, as well as the Construct, which is the recording and preservation of a person’s consciousness. The Simstim and the Construct seem to be unlikely future-tense technologies in contrast to Wu’s predicted future involving the potential end of net neutrality. Also, Gibson predicts a world where multinational corporations have assumed the role of governments. Today, governments remain powerful and determined to prevent corporations from monopolizing the Internet.

            How big a threat does Wu feel the centralization of the Internet poses?  Enough of a threat that he has joined the federal government in an effort to protect net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission recently named Tim Wu a senior advisor for competition and consumer protection issues affecting the Internet and cell phones (Bilton). Wu strongly believes in the importance of consumers having unregulated access to all Internet content and he will work with the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning to assist with competition and consumer protection policy initiatives related to technology (Bilton). As earlier discussed, Wu fears the possibility of AT&T, Apple, Google or Verizon controlling the Internet in the near future and influencing the content consumers can access online. Why is this fear rational?  In The Master Switch, Wu describes the history of information industries in which corporations successfully monopolized a particular industry. Essentially, Wu believes that history has foretold the eventual attempt to centralize the Internet. The Internet “naturally harnesses the power of decentralization and defies central control, but in the face of a determined power, that design alone is no adequate defense of what we hold most dear about the network” (Wu 317). Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who worries that the monopolization of the Internet will negatively impact our economy, joins Wu in his effort to save net neutrality. The Internet revolution of the past twenty-five years has created millions of jobs and new industries. Congressman Markey believes in the importance of net neutrality as it allows for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity (Markey). The openness of the Internet ensures that the consumer benefits and that innovation, competition and investment continue to thrive. 

            As Tim Wu and others fight to make sure that all Internet traffic be treated equally, Verizon issued a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality policy in January (Tessler). This was followed by a promise by Republican members of Congress to repeal net neutrality rules in February (The Associated Press). Will the FCC be able to withstand these attacks? Hopefully, otherwise Wu’s fear of a future where corporations control the Internet and its content may soon become a reality.

Works Cited:

Bilton, Nick. "Tim Wu, Creator of the Term 'Net Neutrality,' Joins the Federal Government.” The New York Times 

            2011. The New York Times. Web.

Brown University. "Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control Of Computer Cursor. Science Daily 

            2004. Science Daily. Web. 

Conlon, Tom. "The IPad's Closed System: Sometimes I Hate Being Right." Popular Science (2010). Popular 

            Science. 29 Jan. 2010. Web.

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print. 

Markey, Representative Ed. "The Importance of Net Neutrality." POLITICO 2010. POLITICO. Web.

Tessler, Joelle. “Verizon Challenges FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules.” MSNBC 2011. MSNBC. 20 Jan. 2011. Web.

The Associated Press. “House Republicans Seek to Block FCC Internet Rules.” National Public Radio (2011). 

           National Public Radio. 18 Feb. 2011. Web.

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010. Print. 

A Bleak Perception

            Despite the fact that I have chosen not to play massively multiplayer online role-playing games, I do not disapprove of those who play within reason. Last week, as I watched the documentary “Second Skin,” I felt mixed emotions towards online gaming. I was appalled to see an online gamer, who plays World of Warcraft for six hours a night, move halfway across the country to live with three friends he met in a virtual world. I felt disturbed as I watched a man find virtual love in the world of Everquest. After a few months of dating online, the man traveled cross-country to meet the woman in real life. I felt concerned for the suicidal man who went to Online Gamers Anonymous as he had receded from his real life after he started playing Everquest. I felt sympathetic and inspired by a man with Cerebral Palsy whose entire personality is expressed through his engagement in the virtual world. After watching “Second Skin,” still with mixed emotions towards online gaming, I have come to the conclusion that for those who engage in MMORPGS, there needs to be a balance between real life and virtual life. 

            In determining the balance between real life and virtual life, where do you draw the line? How much online gaming is too much? It becomes problematic when people live and breathe MMORPGs as in they don’t just play to play it, they play to live it. Unfortunately, most of the people in “Second Skin” were addicted to MMORPGS and there was no balance in their lives. The documentary depicts most of the subjects as largely dysfunctional people who are out of touch with the real world and incapable of engaging in the real world. Thus, “Second Skin” portrayed the negative stereotypes about gamers. With the exception of the man with Cerebral Palsy, there are few positive aspects illustrated about playing MMORPGS. I feel as though the director should have included subjects who played online games but also had a life outside the virtual world. Without including people who balance real life and virtual life, viewers of “Second Skin” might perceive MMORPGs to be inevitably addictive. 

Virtually Successful & Chic

            What on earth is a MMORPG? Julian Dibbell’s book Play Money has taught me that this acronym stands for Massively MultiPlayer Online Role-Playing Games. And, my curiosity ends there as I have never and will never engage in a MMORPG. I just don’t understand the appeal of operating fantasy characters in virtual environments. However, an appeal must exist because hundreds of thousands of people engage in online gaming daily.

           

            

            In the beginning of Play Money, Julian Dibbell is killing lizardmen in the realm of Ultima Online and he ends up selling swords and pieces of gold for a living. A real living, not a virtual one. Well then, what does it mean to be “real” in economics? How are the virtual monetary economic decisions made by Philip Rosedale, creator of Second Life, significantly different from those made by the Federal Reserve? I think that the U.S. economy is more “real” because more people are affected by the U.S. economy than by the Ultima Online economy. However, the online economies for MMORPGs and virtual worlds like Second Life are growing as more people become engaged in and possibly addicted to the virtual marketplace for virtual loot. In one year, talented “gold farmers” are able to make $1,000,000 buying and selling fantasy goods in a virtual world. If you are able to spend your entire day playing video games and still make a fortune, I can understand the appeal. When Stephen Dubner, the author of Freakonomics interviewed Philip Rosedale, he asked, “‘How do people find the time for Second Life? It seems like most people are too busy working multiple jobs and trying to keep up the payments on their credit cards and upwardly-adjusting mortgage payments.’” Philip Rosedale responded, “‘Quit your real job and get one in Second Life! It isn’t possible for everyone, but there are more than 40,000 people who make money in Second Life every month.’” My advice, keep your real job.

            As I read the interview about Second Life on the Freakonomics blog, Rosedale’s response to one of Dubner’s questions made me think, people have lost touch with reality. The question was “‘Are there any virtual goods which actually cost more than their real world counterparts (at Linden dollar/USD conversion rates)?’” The answer was the polar opposite of what I expected. Rosedale said, “‘What a great question! Well, not too many yet, but unique items like virtual clothing from top designers have been sold at in-world charity events for thousands of real dollars.’” Even though I am a huge proponent of charity events, wouldn’t the buyer want the REAL Chanel suit instead of a VIRTUAL suit? If I ever paid thousands of dollars for chic designer clothing, I would be wearing it, not my avatar.   

Works cited:

Dubner, Stephen J. "Philip Rosedale Answers Your Second Life Questions.” The New York Times 2007. The New York Times. Web. 

Foretold by History - Draft

“This time is different: with everything on one network, the potential power to control is so much greater” (318).

            If you type in Yahoo.com or Google.com and press enter, the Internet opens up before you. Suddenly, this world founded on the principle of net neutrality abdicates control to the individual. In The Master Switch, Tim Wu, creator of the term “net neutrality,” discusses the power of potential monopolies such as, Google or Apple, and the threat they pose to the future neutrality of the Internet. Wu fearfully claims that “the future of Apple and Google will form the future of America and the world” (Wu 273) because these companies will continue to determine how Americans and the rest of the world share information. In contrast, William Gibson in Neuromancer envisions the “consensual hallucination” (Gibson 5) of cyberspace as a habitable place, with all the world’s data represented as visual, even palpable structures arranged in a matrix. He depicted a world where the individual could be more powerful than monopolies. Who is right? I believe that Wu's prediction of Google or Apple's destruction of net neutrality is more likely to occur than Gibson's prediction of a future "consensual hallucination." 

            Wu's fear that the power of Google and Apple, coupled with the design of the Internet could end net neutrality in the future is valid. The Internet is “an actual physical entity that can be warped or broken…it has always depended on a finite number of physical connections, whether wired or spectral, and switches, operated by a finite number of firms upon whose good behavior the whole thing depends” (Wu 317). Thus, there is a risk of losing the Internet’s diversity of content and services because it is vulnerable to centralization by a powerful firm, and Google and Apple are examples of dominant firms that just might have that power. Wu considers Google to be “the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch” (Wu 279). In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googlization of Everything, he claims that “we allow Google to determine what is important, relevant, and true…whatever shows up on the first page of a Google search is what matters in forming our sense of any reality” (Wu 281). In addition, Google qualifies as a monopoly because its market share of the search business is over 65 percent (Wu 281). Fortunately, Google currently operates as an open information system, providing customers with choice and freedom. However, given that the company is public and must answer to its shareholders, Google will most likely act in its best economic interest. If centralizing the Internet will enable Google to maximize its profit or eliminate competition, it will be done.

            Similar to Google, Apple is a large, powerful company that could destroy net neutrality by monopolizing the Internet. The App Store enables Apple to decide what content is available to consumers on the iPhone, the iPad, and the iTouch. Also, Apple could eventually control the content consumers have access to online. Tom Conlon of Popular Science declared, “once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly” (Wu 293). As Wu describes, “net neutrality is what prevents the telephone and cable industry from killing Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, blogs…” (Wu 286) as well as Google from destroying Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines. Net neutrality enables the Internet to operate in today’s fashion and it is essential to the prevention of Wu's feared future. Wu concludes The Master Switch with “The Separations Principle,” which proposes a constitutional approach to the information economy where all power that derives from the control of information is constrained and divided in order to avoid “the imminent perils of a closed system” (Wu 316). Wu’s principle promotes net neutrality as it relies on “cultivation of a popular ethic concerning our society’s relation to information…a strong general conviction that it is wrong to block sites on the Internet” (Wu 316).

            If Wu's fear that net neutrality may end seems imminent, in contrast, Gibson's prediction of "consensual hallucination" seems light years away. However, let it be said that some of Gibson's predictions in Neuromancer have come true. For example, Gibson’s networked artificial matrix of cyberspace has come to represent everything from computers and information technology to the Internet. In addition, Neuromancer may have directly influenced the way in which the World Wide Web developed as Gibson introduced the idea of a global network of millions of computers. He envisioned cyberspace as a habitable place, allowing people to “jack in” to a 3-D world using electrodes and neural interfaces. Cyberspace as a habitable place may be far-fetched; however, research has shown that Gibson’s concept of “jacking in” may evolve in the near future. “Researchers at Brown University have used a tiny array of electrodes to record, interpret, and reconstruct the brain activity that controls hand movement – and they have demonstrated that thoughts alone can move a cursor across a computer screen to hit a target” (Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control of Computer Cursor). Even so, the virtual worlds that we have today do not even remotely compare to the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace that Gibson envisioned. He created the Simstim, a sensory experience where one person can view the world through another’s eyes as well as the Construct, which is the recording and preserving a person’s consciousness. The Simstim and Constructs seem to be unlikely future-tense technologies in contrast to Wu’s predicted future involving the potential end of net neutrality.

            How big a threat does Wu feel the centralization of the Internet poses? Enough of a threat that he has joined the Federal Government in an effort to protect net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission recently named Tim Wu “a senior advisor for consumer protection and competition issues that affect the Internet and mobile phones” (Tim Wu, Creator of the Term ‘Net Neutrality,’ Joins the Federal Government). Wu strongly believes in the importance of consumers having unregulated access to all Internet content and he will work with the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning later this month to assist with “‘long-range competition and consumer protection policy initiatives’” (Tim Wu, Creator of the Term ‘Net Neutrality,’ Joins the Federal Government) related to technology. As earlier discussed, Wu fears the possibility of AT&T, Apple, or Verizon controlling the Internet in the near future and influencing the content consumers can access online. Why is this fear rational? In The Master Switch, Wu describes the history of information industries in which corporations successfully monopolized a particular industry. Essentiall, Wu believes that history has foretold the eventual attempt to centralize the Internet. The Internet “naturally harnesses the power of decentralization and defies central control, but in the face of a determined power, that design alone is no adequate defense of what we hold most dear about the network” (Wu 317).
            In addition, Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts supports net neutrality given that the Internet revolution of the past twenty-five years has created millions of jobs and new industries. The freedom and openness of the Internet enables businesses to evolve and compete as e-commerce has grown over four hundred percent in ten years. Congressman Markey stated, “if we make certain that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity, we can ensure that consumers benefit and competition, innovation and investment continue to flourish” (The Importance of Net Neutrality).

            As Tim Wu and others fight in favor of net neutrality, Verizon has issued a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality policy. Verizon is concerned with the FCC’s assertion of authority for new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. Last year, the FCC lost when Comcast challenged a net-neutrality fine. Hopefully, the FCC has found a stronger legal basis for its policy and will be able to enforce net neutrality. Otherwise, Wu’s fear of a future where corporations control the Internet and its content may soon become a reality.

Works Cited:

Bilton, Nick. "Tim Wu, Creator of the Term 'Net Neutrality,' Joins the Federal Government.” The New York Times 2011. The New York Times. Web.

Brown University. "Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control Of Computer Cursor. Science Daily 2004. Science Daily. Web. 

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print. 

Markey, Representative Ed. "The Importance of Net Neutrality." POLITICO 2010. POLITICO. Web.

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010. Print. 

16:06:58:17

           I traveled to Prague and Vienna for 16 days last summer. Today I volunteered for 6 hours at the non-profit Stop Child Abuse Now. I completed my economics homework tonight in 58 minutes. I spent 17 seconds staring at 16:06:58:17 on my Blackberry this morning while my jaw slowly dropped. Was I doing my morning facial exercises? No, it was my face registering my shock when I realized that I have talked on the phone for 16 days, 6 hours, 58 minutes, and 17 seconds since I bought my phone in August 2009. So, obviously I am a gabber and maybe dependent on my cell phone. I must confess that today I spoke to my mom, my dad, my grandmother, my boyfriend, and my best friend on the phone with each call lasting between ten to twenty minutes. However, let it be understood that I'm not homesick. Rather, I'm very close with my family so I’ll call frequently to check-in and catch up. I’ll also talk to my boyfriend on the phone almost daily because he goes to college in Maine and it was unusual for my best friend to call, she usually texts me.

             Why do I love to talk on the phone? It is the closest form of communication to real human contact besides video chatting. Why not Skype? It is so much easier to just dial a phone number than plan a Skype date. Many of my conversations take place as I'm walking to class or coming home from the library, which would be impossible if I was Skyping. Unfortunately, I can't “jack in” to William Gibson’s “consensual hallucination” and visit my grandparents in Florida or visit my best friend in California. So, in order to maintain my closest relationships, I call my family and friends and apparently I have spent 16:06:58:17 on the phone over the past eighteen months! After my dad told me countless times to wear a headset so that cell phone radiation doesn’t give me brain cancer, I’m glad I finally listened.

            Although Gibson’s idea of cyberspace as a “consensual hallucination” is fascinating, there is a reason we haven’t progressed technology in his predicted direction. I think that reason is because people appreciate human contact and cultural immersion. I don’t want to put on electrodes and enter a virtual world of Greece when I can actually travel there and interact with the native people and learn about their culture. After reading Neuromancer and analyzing my cell phone communication, my appreciation of face-to-face human contact has grown. Even though Gibson’s ideas of “microsofts” and electrodes may come to fruition in the near future, I hope that people remember that nothing compares to real live human contact.

Fixation on Technology

            To be completely honest, I am slogging through Neuromancer by William Gibson because of his technological language and dense descriptive language. I’d rather read about punk computer hacker Lisabeth Salander in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo who lives in the real world than about punk cowboy Case who lives in a virtual world. So, what do I really think about Neuromancer? I'm not sure if I even have a thorough understanding of what has occurred in the first part of the novel. However, I do know that as a cyberpunk novel, Gibson is expressing dark ideas about human nature, technology, and their respective combination in the near future. Twenty-seven years after its publication, it's interesting to see which of Gibson’s predictions about cyberspace, a world that he created, have come true. 

            For example, in Neuromancer, Gibson emphasizes the increasing presence of technology in the daily lives of humans. The characters in the novel constantly utilize, wear, and discuss various forms of technology. Case repeatedly uses a “deck” and “trodes” (this word is not googleable but they are goggles) to “jack into” cyberspace. Other characters insert tiny chips called “microsofts” into the spot behind their ears. Microsofts form a direct neural link and have the ability to transfer any information to the brain. If you're Paris and you never spoke a word of French before in your life, wouldn't it be great to use a microsoft and suddenly be fluent? Bonjour mes amis! I think Gibson envisioned a useful technological advancement, however, this chip doesn't exist…yet.

            Since 1984, the prevalence of technology in our daily lives has dramatically increased. In fact, I would venture to say that in 2011, humans are fixated on technology. Look around you; technology is everywhere. Think of how you live? What would you do without e-mail, texting, Microsoft Word, and the Internet? Yes, of course you would survive, but you might be helpless. Is this a sign that people today are too reliant on technology? Maybe. Also, we can't lose sight of the importance of human contact. There is no face to face in Facebook, so, rather than messaging your friend, meet him or her for coffee.

            Even though sometimes I feel as though I have narcolepsy when I read Neuromancer, I do think that Gibson was a visionary in his prediction of how influential cyberspace and technology would become in our daily lives. I also think that there still a lot more technology to come.