Restricting Facetime

Net neutrality is an important unwritten rule for internet providers to not restrict access to certain sites by allotting a larger amount of bandwidth to certain sites.  This rule helps solidify that the internet is an open forum and providers should not halt access to certain parts of it based on the data plan that a person has.  Unfortunately, mobile internet providers have limited access to certain site by structuring data plans around sites that pay them to have priority access.  The mobile internet providers are waging war on net neutrality and the users will brunt the consequences.

MacKinnon writes about net neutrality as "industry trends point to the likelihood that the mobile  internet everywhere will be much more constrained and manipulated, with limited room for the citizen commons" (MacKinnon 123).  In this article by Reuters, formal complaints are being filled against AT&T about how the are limited users to have a Wi-Fi connection when using Facetime.  Its supporters say that if you pay for access to the internet, then you should be able to use it.  AT&T claims that if users were able to access Facetime over a cellular network, it would slow down the network by a large amount because Facetime is the most data-heavy form of communication that AT&T offers.  While claims by supporters call out AT&T on violating net neutrality, AT&T does not entirely restricting the program.  In a way, allowing access of Facetime over their cellular network would be a violation of Net Neutrality because the data needed for users to use Facetime would slow the entire network down, giving Facetime the priority access of data. 

The complexity of internet access plans will become more complex overtime as internet providers will offer services for the more general internet user who only needs to access a few sites.  The violation of net neutrality is an inevitable as service providers find excuses to limit access based on data use.  

When Drama Goes Too Far

Since the birth of social media, teen drama has shifted in its conflict.  The internet has given its users a curtain to hide behind when instigating drama.  Marwick and Boyd write "Understanding how “drama” operates is necessary to recognize teens’ own defenses against the realities of aggression, gossip, and bullying in networked publics".  The drama that teens are able to create with Facebook has become more brutal since it is not a face to face interactions.  Actions on social media sites are seen without any sort of repercussions because the internet doesn't have any "laws" and subsists.   

Facebook drama has escalated into physical confrontations.  In some cases, it has even led to murder.  In the case of Venita Allen, the drama was caused by a breakup.  She was shot by her ex-boyfriend after drama on Facebook.  The problem that teens of the future will face is the ability to create conflict on the internet.  Access to other people's information has become so easy that creating slanderous content for everyone to see. These conflicts spread so quickly now since people are able to like, comment and share status updates.  This new way of posting makes dividing the sides of drama much easier and brutal.  And with the amount of transparency that Facebook has, it only makes the drama more direct.

The drama that teens can carryout on Facebook will only escalate with the amount of users.  The amount of legislation that needs to exist with Facebook.  The deaths and suicides linked to Facebook will increase and need enforcement.

Is this Cringe Worthy?

Many users of the internet expect a certain amount of privacy of what they post.  We believe that we can control who sees what we post on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.  For some people, the false sense of privacy is enough for people to post things that would harm their reputation.  Some websites like Reddit and Failblog are dedicated to the mass distribution of embarrassing content.  One particular sub Reddit, r/cringe, hosts user created content of posts deemed embarrassing by the users of the subreddit.     

Vaidhyanathan writes in The Googlization of Everything that "When we complain about infringements of privacy, what we really demand is some measure of control over our reputations" (Vaidhyanathan 93).  People have certain expectations when it comes to privacy because they feel that they control the content and who has access to it.  In reality, unless you make the content private , anyone on the internet can have access to it.  With a community like r/cringe dedicated to finding embarrassing content on the internet that most people do not want others to see.  This gives question to what should be considered private on the internet.   Anything that is posted to the to the internet that is deemed public should be able to be viewed by anyone.  People who are concerned with damaging their reputation should not post anything to the internet that they would not want strangers to see.

As the internet grows, sites dedicated to exploiting the ignorance of privacy on the internet will thrive.  People who post content on the internet need to understand that anything that is made public is really public, and can be accessed by anyone.  

Subjecting Ourselves: Grindr and Privacy

As our access to technology increases, we become more connected to others through our devices.  Some new apps that are arriving, such as Grindr, are connecting people more people with a specific goal.  Grindr is an app on iPhone and android that allows men who are gay, bisexual, or bi-curious to see what other users are around and contact them.  The most unique feature of Grindr is that it actually tells you the distance away other users are.  Many concerns have been made about how are we going to protect our privacy as technology increases.  David Brin writes "But accountablility is no side benefit.  It is the one fundamental ingredient on which liberty thrives.  Without the accoutability that derives from openess - enforceable upon even the mightiest individuals and institutions - how can freedom survive" (Brin 332).

The main concern that David Brin has with the expansion of technology is that it will be used against us because we will not be able to be trusted by any institution.  I argue that we are the ones that sacrifice our freedom because we trust technology and its users.  In the article "Child Molesters Moving to Grindr to Find Underage Victims", underage children are using Grindr as a way any other user would.  While the article argues that the blame of this crime rests with the parents, it rests with the idea that we can trust technology and its users.  We trust that people are honest on the internet, and even that we should meet them in person.  In a way, we have created easier ways for hate and sexual crimes to be committed.  Grindr has also been linked with hate crimes as people are able to track the location of the users and locate them if they have a picture on their profile.  The problem of booming technology is not entirely arisen from the fact that it will become easier to monitor users.  It is the simple fact that we trust the booming technology.  We are the enablers of our loss of privacy; we are willing to subject ourselves to invasion of privacy.

As our technology booms, will we be as trustworthy of technology? When we continue to connect with the world, we will give up our privacy.  Our privacy will be gone as we become more trustworthy of each other. 

Can Anyone Sink the Pirate Ships?

Piracy has changed the way people and legal organizations view the internet.  From the very beginning, and even the precursors to, the internet was always in favor of sharing content and ideas.  Piracy of the internet has become more complex when creating legislation because of torrents.  Torrents are files downloaded of the internet that locate files on someone's computer to download.  Legislation of piracy has been a long battle because the sites are not hosting the actual file to be downloaded; they are acting as middle men in the search for free content. 

John Biggs is his article "Avast, Me Hearties: How The Pirate Bay Changed The Way We Steal" writes "There are ways to make things uncomfortable for content sharers and there are ways to arrest people for soliciting pirated content, but in the vast panoply of the internet there's very little chance any dedicated enforcement agency can perform its duties with any effectiveness" (Bigg).  Many governments and other private organizations have tried to shut down torrenting sites, but all have failed.  In this article on Torrent Freak, Japan has created a new law that gives the government the power to fine or arrest someone if the download illegal content.  No longer are we the anonymous viewers of the internet; the governments and other organizations like the MPAA want the internet to be monitored.    Is this a new wave of legislation going after the simple user?  Lawsuits in the past have been waged against the simple user before, and the cost to them was very high.  Attacking the simple down-loaders, while not directly confronting the pirate websites, is a better tactic to stop piracy.  As torrent file loophole will keep these sites alive indefinitely, attacking the users will be an easier way to instil fear into the simple torrenter.  The problem with this tactic in the U.S. is that unlawful searches are illegal, and your computer is private property.  Also, if a large amount of people were caught torrenting, then the legal system would be overflowing with court cases. 

Piracy is an unsinkable ship; there is no effective legal system to stop it.  The internet has created a new band of thieves: the average internet user.

Is this Real Life?

Vlogging, or videoblogging, is a relatively new sensation, made famous by Youtube.  Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau say "The form has antecedents in webcam culture, personal blogging and the more widespread 'confessional culture' that characterizes television talk shows and reality television focused on the observation of everyday life" (94).  The subject matter of vlogs varies, but the idea of "confessional culture" exists throughout them.  Vlogs have become such a sensation because they are easy to produce, the viewer feels as if they are being spoken directly to, and vlogs encourage discussion.  The idea of easy to produce videos with the encouraged discussion entices viewers to create their own vlog as a response to a more popular blog, perhaps even becoming viral.

One vlog that I used to watch when I was younger was called "The Internet Killed Television".  The premise of this vlog is that it is an ordinary, young couple using Youtube to document their life.  After 4 years of vlogging every single day of their life, including their wedding proposal (their most viewed video and embedded below) and wedding, they still are able to get around 90,000 views per video.  After watching many of their videos, I would say that vlogs do not only rely on just the idea of confessional culture.  Vlogs have many aspects of voyeuristic films, especially with personal and daily vlogs, because the viewer is able to watch a strangers life from afar.  Confessional culture only goes as far to explain the content of vlogs, but using a voyeur lens allows us to really see that we are almost spying in on people's lives.  While the example that Snickars and Vonderau bring up (lonelygirl15) is a way to explain how content of a video allows a vlog to gain a lot of popularity, it is the fact that the viewer is watching another persons life.  While The Internet Killed Television is a vlog, it does not re-enforce the idea of confessional culture as much as some other vlogs.   The voyeur lens provides a reason to watch the videos.

The content of the vlogs is important to gain viewership, but voyeurism is the reason that people make vlogs.  It is the idea of peeping in on peoples lives that entices the viewer to continue their viewership.

Virtual Girlfriends in Real Life

Turkle's idea of a virtual world is more than just an escape for people from their daily lives.  She argues that people who spend time in worlds like WoW and second life form their identities online.  This online identity creation empowers these people to do more in the virtual world than they could ever do in real life.  She say "their virtual identities make them feel more like themselves than they do in real life" (159).

In an article by Daisuke Wakabayashi , men in Japan travel to a hotel with their virtual sweethearts on a romantic getaway using a Nintendo DS game called Love Plus+.  The idea of the virtual girlfriend evolves beyond the virtual realm; men are able to rent out hotel rooms for two at this resort, buy dinner for two, and remember certain dates.  Unlike in second life were the users exist in the physical realm, the patron of the hotel's girlfriends only exist on their Nintendo DS systems.  One of the users of Love Plus+ said "'There isn't a lot of romance in my life and this helps me cope with some of the loneliness'" (Wakabayashi).  The relationships formed in communities such as second life serve as an outlet for most users, creating the second life that most people dream of.  Love Plus+ offers a more realistic approach to the virtual world, because the virtual and physical world exist together.  The users of Love Plus+ are in a relationship that exists in real life, and the game requires the man to act if he were dating someone in real life. 

Love Plus is the future of the online community, blurring the line between the physical and virtual realm.  How people will create relationships in the future will evolve with technology, maybe one day computers will be datable.