Freedom of Speech in the Age of Wikileaks

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Free+speech+Twitter/4662251/story.html

I found this somewhat interesting article in the Montreal Gazette today that, among other things, discusses the effects of free speech in the age of Wikileaks and other social media. Despite the fact that this piece was incredibly long-winded and slightly tangential, it did raise several important points. Early on in the article the author, Juan Rodriguez, cites a line from Noam Chomsky's book that says, "When you get to a case where nobody likes what's being said, then somehow defense of freedom of speech disappears." This sentiment is directly related to what happened with Wikileaks. I understand that the Wikileaks dilemma is very complicated in that it is very hard for the government to be both secure and transparent -- there are just some secrets that must remain secrets. However, Asange's actions also come from a very real place; he was motivated by his right to freely express himself. I don't know that I'll ever really understand the ramifications of Wikileaks. However, I am not sure that it is right for the media to vilify Asange and call him a traitor nor is it right for the media to praise him and call him a hero. Within reason, people like Asange should be able to exercise their constitutional rights. Due to the evolution of the internet, the public has the opportunity to exercise its rights more than ever before and in new and different ways so not only should we welcome this sort of civic engagement, but we should be better prepared for it.

-Chibuzo

Internet Freedom and Democracy

I found a fascinating article in the Huffington Post that discussed the relationship between the internet and modern democracy. It provides an analysis of how "Freedom House" ranked the independence of various countries according to their internet freedom. According to the article, internet freedom is defined as "absence from politically motivated control". While reading this article, I immediately thought of countries like China and Egypt, who have attempted to maintain control of their citizens by restricting internet access. Apparently, the United States comes in at number two on this list, with nations such as Russia and Thailand being of the most concern. However, I'm glad that this article was written because it expresses the role of the internet, blogs and open dialogue in shaping democracy. When certain nations were seen as having more internet freedom than others, I tried to contextualize that information based on the state of politics in those countries and whether or not they had stable democracies. Are there any thoughts on this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-wagstaff/global-internet-freedom-bloggers_b_852514.html?ir=Technology

~Zakiyyah~

Is the Internet Taking Over?

There's a recent article in the Huffington Post about the impact of the internet on our daily lives. The article points out that on one hand, the internet allows people to tie different aspects of their lives together and can be very beneficial in the political realm. However, it also mentions that the excessive use of the internet could be detrimental to society, and distort our ideas of the real world. I have personally found that the internet, particularly social media sites, have been very useful for political figures seeking to promote their ideas. Do you agree with either of these statements? If it's just the excessive use of the internet that is harmful, could we possibly find a way to indirectly mediate people's use of the internet?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-friedman-lmsw/internet-addiction-should_b_851684.html?ir=Technology

~Zakiyyah~

Social Networking, Competition, and Privacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/googles-news-on-two-fronts-and-other-headlines/2011/03/28/AF5oySPC_story.html

I found a brief article in the business section of the Washington Post that talks about the privacy violations incurred by google after releasing "Google buzz," a new social-networking component of their site. Some users of google buzz reported that their information was insecure and open to the public and as a result, Google had to agree to strict privacy rules that ensured that the names and personal information of users would be protected. The article also said that Google Buzz was created to "counter the rise" of other popular social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. As such, I must pose this question: though social networking sites have in many ways brought the world closer, are they not a greater risk to our security in general; how does the competition between companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter contribute to our diminishing privacy and in what ways can we avoid this?

- Chibuzo

Obama Speaks to You

An article in the Washington Post discusses Obama's idea to move away from imported oil and into cleaner forms of energy with the hope of creating jobs. President Obama also uses his weekly internet and radio address to elaborate on the issue, and I admit that this was my first time ever seeing/hearing any of his weekly briefings. I personally had an easier time following the article as opposed to the video (although this could be due to the fact that I watched the video after reading the article, so some of the information was redundant). However, I wanted to see whether or not there was a difference in how I absorbed the information and whether or not the video/article contained any structural forms of bias. The idea of having Obama personally speak to me, as opposed to watching him speak to an audience, is biased in itself as it is more personalized. I found that I actually absorbed more information from the article, and that the video was a bit distracting, as I was more focused on the details while missing the big picture. In addition, the video takes longer to watch, which might not agree with the majority of the public's attention span. Do you think there is a difference between reading the article and watching the video in terms of comprehension and bias? Do you think Obama's weekly briefings are a good way to inform the public? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-shifting-from-imported-oil-to-cleaner-forms-of-energy-will-help-boost-job-creation/2011/04/02/AFUqnNMC_story.html

~Zakiyyah~

Google Gets Friendly!!

Inspired by social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Google has decided that it wants to add a social layer, leading to its idea of "online friendship". However, Google friends would be people within your Google contacts, Google talk, and people connected to your Google profile. Although the confusion that this might cause is problematic, my major concern is how Google plans on using this social layer as a new source of information to add to its search engine. Apparently this new feature would be used more for sharing information than for simply providing more interaction. From my understanding, Google, which is widely known and designed as an informative search engine, is now trying to add a social feature where people will have more access to information based on who in their network of friends has liked it, regardless of credibility or applicability. Although this may link people within the same network together, could this also potentially alter Google's somewhat objective nature and provide more possibilities for the polarization effect?

Decide for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/03/31/google.friendship.plus1/index.html?hpt=Sbin

This link provides a better explanation of the feature itself:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223854/google_wants_you_to_like_1_but_will_you.html

~Zakiyyah~

Wikipedia: Communication Styles Make a Difference

I found an interesting article in the New York Times that explains why men seem to be more frequent contributors to Wikipedia than women. Initially I was puzzled by the idea because we have discussed in class that women tend to be more frequent users of social media sites. What makes Wikipedia so different? According to Susan Herring, Wikipedia presents a tone of communication that is more intimidating to women, causing them to shy away from it. Unlike social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia doesn't allow its users to have as much control over communication and has a "neutral point of view" policy that matches a more masculine style of communication. What do you think? If "far fewer women than men said they weren’t interested in the topics of discussion" as the article states, could it be the partiality of this virtual environment that is preventing women from participating?

Read more about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/communication-styles-make-a-difference  

~Zakiyyah~