I have never seen such a dispute over a website than I have for WikiLeaks. Whether you are a support or not of WikiLeaks, there is no hiding the fact that WikiLeaks can potentially change the world as we know it. WikiLeaks is a website that calls its self defender of information freedom. It posts up secret information ranging from government policies to corporate policies. The point is that this website puts up information that is not meant for the public to read. Recently WikiLeaks has been playing Internet hopscotch jumping from site to site due to the fact that many other website have been closing the door to WikiLeaks. For example, WikiLeaks takes donations from its fans to keep the site up and running, but one form of its donations was closed down when PayPal closed their account. According to PayPal WikiLeaks does not obey their terms and policies.
I personally think WikiLeaks has not broken and government rules and should fight actions such as PayPal's in court if necessary. We all have the right to freedom of speech so why cant a group of people create a website and do so. If the government has nothing to hide than this should not cause so much alarm, but the fact that WikiLeaks releases confidential articles about companies causes much uproar in America. The economy is something that no one nor website can interfere with and the government will do everything it needs to in order to halt WikiLeaks. This goes to show that money is the most important thing in America.
WikiLeaks will go nowhere, due to the fact it has hundreds of mirror links. Hackers recently halted credit card transactions the other day and no one knows for sure if the reason was because of the heat brought upon WikiLeaks. But if these hackers can halt such an important aspect in Americas economy, what else can they do? Millions of people are screwed once they cant use their credit cards, so maybe we should all open our eyes and see that this website and maybe more to come mean business.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Final Assignment ( First Blog )
I chose to write about the question concerning Giles Slades. I personally enjoyed reading Made to Break a lot more than Technopoly. Made to break brings to the table many questions I think are important for Americans to address. I will start to answer the question whether America is moving towards a green movement or more of a disposable society by weighing which one of these paths Slades thinks attracts more Americans. Glades seems to feel that Americans would not like to change the society they are so used to because it benefits many. These people benefiting are of course those who love having what is new in the market and business that sell cheap durable goods. Next I want to write about all the things that make America become a disposable society beginning with the different types of obsolescence and an example of how the invention of a product can have devastating effects in society.
I want to analyze in specific the effects of obsolescence but I do not want to write about cars, because although it has certain obsolescence aspects, I feel more people can relate to a cellphone. A cellphone can be owned by anyone and many people can relate to either having a cheap phone breaking or a new model being released that makes your current one "trash." Glades does a great job of adding statistics such as the number of cellphones being thrown out a year which is adding to the e-waste America has. Then I plan on writing on why it is so difficult for Americans to leave their throw away ethic and become more responsible about what is happening due to their current culture and values. They are destroying the world they live in.
Finally I would like to address why America can not transition to a more green path so easily and fast. Glades talks about the lack of education of consumers and unwillingness of companies to change their business ways. The economy is very important and it is something that no business company wants to change, especially knowing they might lose money. There are a few key ideas on how to take baby steps towards going green, but these are only a few ideas that do not seem to radically fix the existing problem Americans face of building structures of waste.
I want to analyze in specific the effects of obsolescence but I do not want to write about cars, because although it has certain obsolescence aspects, I feel more people can relate to a cellphone. A cellphone can be owned by anyone and many people can relate to either having a cheap phone breaking or a new model being released that makes your current one "trash." Glades does a great job of adding statistics such as the number of cellphones being thrown out a year which is adding to the e-waste America has. Then I plan on writing on why it is so difficult for Americans to leave their throw away ethic and become more responsible about what is happening due to their current culture and values. They are destroying the world they live in.
Finally I would like to address why America can not transition to a more green path so easily and fast. Glades talks about the lack of education of consumers and unwillingness of companies to change their business ways. The economy is very important and it is something that no business company wants to change, especially knowing they might lose money. There are a few key ideas on how to take baby steps towards going green, but these are only a few ideas that do not seem to radically fix the existing problem Americans face of building structures of waste.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Solo Current Event Presentation
Do Americans really have the freedom of speech? If we truly have freedom of speech, should the website WikiLeaks be dubbed a terrorist group for making information accessible to the public? Recently PayPal has canceled WikiLeaks account due to the fact that the "service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity." I personally do not feel that WikiLeaks is doing anything illegal and they should continue to reveal information to the public as long as no lives are put in danger. I am not the only one that feels this way, when I raised the question whether WikiLeaks was either a terrorist organization or defender of freedom information, majority thought it was a defender of freedom.
If the government has nothing to hide then what is the big deal? Yet again WikiLeaks is leaking information that is not benefiting certain corporations and no one can mess with commerce it seems like. WikiLeaks seems to be growing all around the world and with all its mirror websites, I do not think it is possible for the government to completely shut down the website. WikiLeaks is revealing documents and articles that compromise what we should and should not know about our world, if you ask me they are doing all of us favor and informing us of what is truly going on. In a way WikiLeaks is making the world transparent for all of us to see!
Some government officials are trying to censor what we can say and with whom we share this information with. It is clear however, that with the wide range of technology, a website can play hopscotch and keep its business running. Technology in this case is both a pro and con, because it is helping to distribute information on a world wide scale.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024649-38.html?tag=mncol;8n)
If the government has nothing to hide then what is the big deal? Yet again WikiLeaks is leaking information that is not benefiting certain corporations and no one can mess with commerce it seems like. WikiLeaks seems to be growing all around the world and with all its mirror websites, I do not think it is possible for the government to completely shut down the website. WikiLeaks is revealing documents and articles that compromise what we should and should not know about our world, if you ask me they are doing all of us favor and informing us of what is truly going on. In a way WikiLeaks is making the world transparent for all of us to see!
Some government officials are trying to censor what we can say and with whom we share this information with. It is clear however, that with the wide range of technology, a website can play hopscotch and keep its business running. Technology in this case is both a pro and con, because it is helping to distribute information on a world wide scale.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024649-38.html?tag=mncol;8n)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Facebook Effect ( Third Blog )
Mark Zuckerberg is always a man thinking of the future, always trying to "imagine how his little service could be more than just an internet destination." ( pg 216 ) As if Facebook wasn't a big social network already, Zuckerberg decided to make his website into a platform, a website in which applications would be created for users to use as they wish. The never ending goals of Zuckerberg have caused "both technologists and ordinary users to sense that this service was more than they'd reckoned." ( pg 226 ) The whole notion of making Facebook into more than just a website has in a sense created Facebook into the web itself with all its users and applications pouring in daily.
Facebook has become such an important aspect in most people's life that it has become a norm to log on Facebook. The success of Zuckerberg's website has transformed him into a "rock star now." ( pg 274 ) To be quite honest Mark deserves all the praise he gets. He set himself to create the best social network and he is dominating the web and his globalization is opening even more doors. Zuckerberg's website "opens you to a lot more people in a lot more contexts than you would have been before." ( pg 278 ) Facebook has remained for the people, " a way to assert one's right to be oneself", just as Zuckerberg intends it to be. ( pg 281 ) What separates Mark's success from the rest is that to him growth is primary and revenue is secondary.
Facebook is not only changing itself, but it is also radically changing our institutions and way of life. To many Facebook is making the world a more transparent place. When Facebook users wish to express themselves they turn to the website for an outlet, "Facebook has now become one of the first places dissatisfied people worldwide take their gripes, activism, and protests." ( pg 290 ) People can now voice themselves online in masses and try to make their voices heard. Facebook already plays a huge role in government campaigns, as our current President Barrack Obama demonstrated during his campaign. Facebook seems to be along the path to completely dominate our lives in one way or another, whether we like it or not.
Facebook has become such an important aspect in most people's life that it has become a norm to log on Facebook. The success of Zuckerberg's website has transformed him into a "rock star now." ( pg 274 ) To be quite honest Mark deserves all the praise he gets. He set himself to create the best social network and he is dominating the web and his globalization is opening even more doors. Zuckerberg's website "opens you to a lot more people in a lot more contexts than you would have been before." ( pg 278 ) Facebook has remained for the people, " a way to assert one's right to be oneself", just as Zuckerberg intends it to be. ( pg 281 ) What separates Mark's success from the rest is that to him growth is primary and revenue is secondary.
Facebook is not only changing itself, but it is also radically changing our institutions and way of life. To many Facebook is making the world a more transparent place. When Facebook users wish to express themselves they turn to the website for an outlet, "Facebook has now become one of the first places dissatisfied people worldwide take their gripes, activism, and protests." ( pg 290 ) People can now voice themselves online in masses and try to make their voices heard. Facebook already plays a huge role in government campaigns, as our current President Barrack Obama demonstrated during his campaign. Facebook seems to be along the path to completely dominate our lives in one way or another, whether we like it or not.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Facebook Effect ( Second Blog )
What made the Facebook so successful when its predecessors failed one by one? The bottom line was that Mark Zuckerberg's "central thought was that kids have a deep-seated desire to have certain kinds of social interaction in college and that's what drives them is their extreme interest in their friends." ( pg 107 ) From the very beginning Mark was all about freedom for his website, no matter how big is company became. After becoming a million dollar company and having millions of users, Mark knew he had to allow investors to invest. Facebook's first evaluation was a little less than 98 million dollars compared to Google's 75 million dollar's. Now that money was no longer an obstacle for Mark he had to transform his company into a business and himself into a CEO.
Hiring was never an easy thing for Facebook, but yet again who would want to work for a twenty year old CEO with no experience and an invention considered a fad by many. Steve Chen for example "went ahead and left to start YouTube." ( pg 129 ) Zuckerberg was new to all of this and bought himself a diary to jot all his ideas down. The diary was named The Book of Change and "it revealed in detail where he was hoping to take his company." ( pg 135 ) Mark then took another step towards becoming a CEO by shadowing Don Graham, CEO of the Washington Post. All though Mark was new to all of this, he knew no matter what Facebook was going to forever be for the people. For example the creation of the News Feed wall on Facebook caused major disputes that people did not want their information distributed so easily and to everyone. Mark being an intelligent man tweaked a few privacy settings and quieted the rioters.
The whole notion of privacy settings is a completely different topic on its own. Facebook deals with users trying to create fake profiles of celebrities or even friends on a daily basis. Mark tries to install the idea that Facebook users should "have on identity" no matter what. ( pg 199 ) But Facebook itself has faults in its program. Their are some users that try to create an account but the system does not allow them to create it due to the fact that their name is a single letter for example. However, users must be aware that these privacy settings are created to ensure no hoax profiles. At the end of the day Mark is both a villain and hero for his privacy settings on Facebook, its up to the user to decide which he is.
Hiring was never an easy thing for Facebook, but yet again who would want to work for a twenty year old CEO with no experience and an invention considered a fad by many. Steve Chen for example "went ahead and left to start YouTube." ( pg 129 ) Zuckerberg was new to all of this and bought himself a diary to jot all his ideas down. The diary was named The Book of Change and "it revealed in detail where he was hoping to take his company." ( pg 135 ) Mark then took another step towards becoming a CEO by shadowing Don Graham, CEO of the Washington Post. All though Mark was new to all of this, he knew no matter what Facebook was going to forever be for the people. For example the creation of the News Feed wall on Facebook caused major disputes that people did not want their information distributed so easily and to everyone. Mark being an intelligent man tweaked a few privacy settings and quieted the rioters.
The whole notion of privacy settings is a completely different topic on its own. Facebook deals with users trying to create fake profiles of celebrities or even friends on a daily basis. Mark tries to install the idea that Facebook users should "have on identity" no matter what. ( pg 199 ) But Facebook itself has faults in its program. Their are some users that try to create an account but the system does not allow them to create it due to the fact that their name is a single letter for example. However, users must be aware that these privacy settings are created to ensure no hoax profiles. At the end of the day Mark is both a villain and hero for his privacy settings on Facebook, its up to the user to decide which he is.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Midterm Blog
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that offers information to every ones fingertips. People must be aware however, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by people like you and me. Sure there are respectable people offering accurate information from a field, but some information is malicious and incorrect. Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source, for the fact that anyone can create or edit a wiki article. Instead the website should be used as a background check for certain topics. Once someone has a general idea on a topic thanks to Wikipedia they should use a more scholarly source to make sure all the facts are correct. It is truly amazing that a non famous person can contribute to society's knowledge, but not everyone has the same intention of creating a bigger circle of knowledge.
The technology we have today allows us in a sense to change or alter truth. There have been numerous accounts of Wikipedia users declaring the death of a person and editing that persons Wikipedia article. Someone who doesn't follow up on the life of this person regularly might stumble upon this information and take it as reliable and site it. The ease of altering reality whether for fun or malicious reasons, creates a bad image for our generation. We have so much technology that we should harness its power to better society rather than fool around with it. This project has reassured my reasoning that Wikipedia can not be taken as one hundred percent accurate. At times the website does tend to leave out information for whatever reason, so anyone using the website for facts should always double check the references.
The technology we have today allows us in a sense to change or alter truth. There have been numerous accounts of Wikipedia users declaring the death of a person and editing that persons Wikipedia article. Someone who doesn't follow up on the life of this person regularly might stumble upon this information and take it as reliable and site it. The ease of altering reality whether for fun or malicious reasons, creates a bad image for our generation. We have so much technology that we should harness its power to better society rather than fool around with it. This project has reassured my reasoning that Wikipedia can not be taken as one hundred percent accurate. At times the website does tend to leave out information for whatever reason, so anyone using the website for facts should always double check the references.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Facebook Effect ( First Blog )
Majority of Americans either know about Facebook or are on it. Many of us are joined Facebook for its social features, but some people over the years have learned how to use Facebook as a "constructive or destructive force." ( pg 8 ) One of the best examples of its constructive force would be what Oscar Morales did in Colombia. Oscar harnessed the power of Facebook to create a group against FARC, a guerrilla group that terrorizes Colombia. The groups sole purpose for Morales was to "express my anger" as he states, "it was like therapy." ( pg 2 ) Soon Facebook became a political tool, where millions of fans could join the group against FARC and express their disgust without fear. This simple Facebook group had the power to construct massive protest groups around the world to go against something wrong in society.
Some people however don't realize that Facebook is also a destructive power. A lot of members of Facebook allow it to substitute face to face communication. Facebook was created to "make it so people could get access to information about anyone, and anyone could share anything that they wanted to." ( pg 29 ) Facebook should be a stepping stone for relations! Facebook allows its members to access information in a variety of ways ranging from its News Feed to its Poke feature. Most of Facebook features came about from previous social networks such as AIM and its away messages. Making Facebook easy and fast for the people caused it to survive and eventually spread to colleges all over the nation.
Since Facebook was not the first social network created it brought along with it legal issues. It seemed as if "whenever I do something successful, every capitalist out there wants a piece of the action." ( pg 83 ) This phrase was more than true when Cameron, Tyler and Divya creators of another social network accused Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, for stealing their ideas. Both parties agreed on settlement and Facebook today seems to have "lasting cultural value that could take over the world." ( pg 47 ) Lets just hope everyone uses it in a constructive force.
Some people however don't realize that Facebook is also a destructive power. A lot of members of Facebook allow it to substitute face to face communication. Facebook was created to "make it so people could get access to information about anyone, and anyone could share anything that they wanted to." ( pg 29 ) Facebook should be a stepping stone for relations! Facebook allows its members to access information in a variety of ways ranging from its News Feed to its Poke feature. Most of Facebook features came about from previous social networks such as AIM and its away messages. Making Facebook easy and fast for the people caused it to survive and eventually spread to colleges all over the nation.
Since Facebook was not the first social network created it brought along with it legal issues. It seemed as if "whenever I do something successful, every capitalist out there wants a piece of the action." ( pg 83 ) This phrase was more than true when Cameron, Tyler and Divya creators of another social network accused Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, for stealing their ideas. Both parties agreed on settlement and Facebook today seems to have "lasting cultural value that could take over the world." ( pg 47 ) Lets just hope everyone uses it in a constructive force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)