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. 

Privacy in Your Digital World

           

            Do you think your Facebook profile, your Verizon text messages, and your Google searches are private? If your answer is yes…think again. In the first half of 2010, Google received 4,200 requests for customer data from law enforcement agencies. Verizon received 90,000 requests in 2007. In 2009, Facebook received 10 to 20 subpoenas and other orders daily. So, I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter how “private” I make my Facebook page because the government can request access to it. However, I’m sure law enforcers are far more interested in finding the members of the antisecrecy group, WikiLeaks than looking at my Facebook profile.

            As a result of Internet advancements enabling people to store e-mails, photos, and documents, a recent New York Times article alluded to federal law enforcement officials’ plans to request new regulations. These regulations would allow law enforcers to perform legal wiretaps of various Internet communications more easily. As Lawrence Lessig discussed in Open Code and Open Societies, “though nations like the U.S. will sing about the importance of free speech in cyberspace, and about keeping cyberspace free, when it comes to issues of national security – as all things copyright are – values fall away” (12). As companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter continue to be bombarded with data requests, they may be forced to comply. If there is a security concern, should companies give law enforcers customer data or protect privacy? If a member of Al-Queda is tweeting about his plan to bomb the Pentagon, then yes, law enforcement officials should have access to customer data. In an effort to fight terrorism and crime, I can understand law enforcement officials desire to obtain certain private information on the Internet. The question becomes: are companies like Twitter and Google responsible for informing their customers that the government wants to access their information?  In terms of Twitter, when the government wanted information about WikiLeaks members, Twitter notified its customers. However, most companies are not required to notify their customers if the law enforcement wants access to customer data.

            After reading Open Code and Open Societies as well as the New York Times article, I have realized no information you divulge about yourself on the Internet is private. Once I hit send on an e-mail, it is in cyberspace and there is no un-send button. It is important to think twice before tweeting or uploading a photo because information on the Internet is oftentimes, available to anyone.

Fuel for the Cycle

            I communicate using technology daily, and I must admit that until I read The Master Switch, I never considered how information industries have evolved and shaped our country during the twentieth century.  How did we move from my grandmother listening to FDR on the radio in 1933 to skyping with me at college in 2011? According to Tim Wu, this has been made possible because these industries have moved through The Cycle, which is “powered by disruptive innovations that upend once thriving industries, bankrupt dominant powers, and change the world” (20). Wu supports this idea with a particular claim about the inevitability and the importance of creative destruction that I found to be the extremely compelling: “Creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what every capitalist concern has got to live in” (28).

            Wu supports his claim in favor of creative destruction through examples in the telephone and radio industries. In the telephone industry, America’s greatest and longest-lasting communications monopoly, AT&T, thrived from the early 1900s until the break-up of the Bell Empire in 1984 and the emergence of a new competitor. It was the upstart firm, MCI, with its microwave transmission technology that creatively destroyed AT&T’s monopoly of telephony. Why is creative destruction and competition healthy for our economy? According to Wu, one corporate entity should not be responsible for the economic well being of the American people because “monopoly presumes a prescience that humans are seldom capable of” (111). It is disruptive innovators, not the monopolists, who guard the general economic good. Wu supports creative destruction and competition because it “revolutionizes industries and ultimately multiplies productivity and value” (195). 

How did creative destruction revolutionize the radio industry? With the introduction of the television.  However, as I discuss in an earlier post, the marketing of television was delayed twenty years from its invention because of the efforts of monopolist David Sarnoff with the FCC acting as his accomplice. Interestingly, Wu points out that this was not the only example of our government assisting monopolies, and therefore disrupting The Cycle and delaying creative destruction. The same was true for AT&T. During most of the 20^th century, AT&T operated as the “most lucrative monopoly in history” (160) with the blessing of the government. Although in 1913 AT&T signed the Kingsbury Commitment to allow independent operators to use its long-distance lines, the government was merely helping forestall openness, competition, and the break-up of AT&T. Wu believes that the government has the power to bless or destroy monopoly power and therefore influence the timing of creative destruction.

            Although I do NOT support the existence of monopolies, and as a consumer I am grateful for creative disruption and competition in our economy, I can sympathize with some of the arguments (albeit with difficulty) of monopoly supporters. These supporters argue, “a federal breakup is an act of aggression and arguably punishes success” (161). In addition, it may in the short-term hurt consumers. For example, in the aftermath of the AT&T break-up, consumers noticed a drop-off in service quality. In The Master Switch, Wu admits, “the ‘competitive’ industries that replaced imperial monopolies were often not as effective as their predecessors, failing to deliver even the fail-safe benefit of competition: lower prices” (161). Even though Wu strives for balance, as he concludes his book with his proposal of “The Separations Principle,” which states that a conglomerate should not own companies in all three content, communications and electronic industries, he acknowledges that monopolies can provide seamless service, efficiency, high-quality content and sometimes even lower prices.   

            In part five of The Master Switch, Wu moves to the Internet and the current battle between Apple and Google and warns that closed, restrictive systems might lead to a new monopoly with fewer choices for the consumer.  Given what has happened to information industries in this country over the last century, why should we believe otherwise? Ironically, AT&T is now the exclusive partner of Apple, which is a closed information system, whereas Google is an open system. In terms of how a closed information system works, Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple said that, “‘We figure out what we want. And I think we’re pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of people are going to want it, too. That’s what we get paid to do’” (297). Apple believes they identify and fulfill popular desires; however, regardless of the success of the iPod, iPad or iPhone, Apple does not satisfy every consumer’s need. In contrast, Google proposes a world with more choice because according to Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, “people prefer choice, freedom, and openness” (297). In addition, Tom Conlon of Popular Science believes that, “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” (293). The bottom line is that we need an open system in which Apple products are not the consumer’s only available purchase and Wu would like to see the government make sure that this does not happen under his Separations Principle. However, even if a monopoly of the Internet was to take place, if we believe in The Cycle, competitors will eventually emerge because history has shown that creative destruction is inevitable.  

            Creative destruction, fueled by innovation, is the driving force behind Wu’s idea of The Cycle, and leads to the rise and fall of information empires. Without creative destruction and competition, the consumer and the economy suffer. Like Wu, I believe in The Cycle as “it goes without saying that economic vitality – innovation, growth, and opportunity – depends on the freedom of the economic system to rise and fall, crash and burn” (301).  What I wonder is how will I be communicating with my grandmother five years from now?  Will we see the emergence of a new technology by then, or will we still be skyping?  

Good to be Free of the FCC

       

        During the 1920s, David Sarnoff, the founder of NBC, was the single most powerful man in American broadcasting. NBC’s parent company, Radio Company of America (RCA), was the nation’s most important radio manufacturer. David Sarnoff and RCA feared competition, specifically the invention of the television and its potential to destroy the broadcast network NBC and RCA. As a self-centered monopolist, Sarnoff was determined to convince the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to freeze the marketing of television in order for RCA to make it their invention. Sarnoff’s close relationship with the FCC enabled him to coerce this government agency into agreeing that the television was inadequate to market to the public. To Sarnoff’s satisfaction, the FCC froze the advancement of commercial television for twenty years.

        This example supports Tim Wu’s claim that “there are some substantial dangers implicit in aligning the immense power of the state with the greatest information monopolists” (p. 59). In this particular case, the FCC had the power to fuel or destroy the broadcasting monopoly. Unfortunately for John Baird, Charles Jenkins and Philo Farnsworth, the inventors of the television, the FCC’s decision allowed Sarnoff and RCA to continue their domination of the broadcasting industry. After the FCC’s decision, Sarnoff engaged in espionage, stealing Farnsworth and Baird’s ideas and creating the world’s most advanced electronic television sets.

        Who is to blame for the early death of America’s first television industry? I believe it is without question David Sarnoff, who was an egotistical, conniving monopolist. However, I think the government, specifically the FCC, is also to blame. In the 1920s and still today, we live in a free-market economy where there should be minimal economic intervention and regulation by the state. Yet, it was a government commission, not the market that decided to forbid the sale of the television. In a free-market economy, inventors like Charles Jenkins, who are not aligned with a monopoly, rely on investors to survive. However, the FCC’s actions deterred potential investors, ending Jenkins’ opportunity for survival in the industry.
        If the FCC still disrupted the free-market economy today, we might not have the Iphone, Android, Facebook, or Skype. As Wu questions, “what fate might have befallen…the IPod or a site like eBay, if going to market required firms to first gain federal permission?” (p. 145). Fortunately, the government is acting in the public interest, and we in turn benefit from Wu’s idea of the Cycle, in which creative disruption results in new technology and innovation.

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