Fys-swarm

These are my results from the swarm. They aren't the best though.

These are the best I've found, however, I got these results by copying the results posted by Meagan McNicholas.

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography-

1. Fleetwood, Chris. "Digital Divide." Io Solutions. Io Solutions, 20 July 2001. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/hq69/Protected/Features/Digital%20Divide.html>.

 This website discusses the definition and reasoning behind the digital divide. This information is important in explaining the digital divide to others, and will help produce an introduction to subject at hand.

2. Wolfson, Todd. "The Internet for Everyone: Digital Philadelphia | Media Mobilizing Project." Media Mobilizing Project | Movements Begin with the Telling of Untold Stories. Media Mobilizing Project, 08 July 2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://mediamobilizing.org/internet-everyone-digital-philadelphia>.

This article (and video) discusses the attempt at reducing the digital divide in Philadephia by attempting to make the internet available to everyone creating what can be called “Digital Philadelphia” Having a society where everyone has full internet access could be revolutionary as everyone will be able to benefit from the internet and no one would have to be excluded from job opportunities and everyone would be able to express themselves on the internet.

3. Rozner, Elroy. "Haves, Have-Nots, and Have-to-Haves: Net Effects of the Digital Divide." Berkman Center. Apr. 1998. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/fallsem98/final_papers/Rozner.html>.

The article goes into much deep depth about the effects of the digital divide, further explaining the effect of lacking internet on low income families in society and how the effects are dividing society.

4. "The Digital Divide and Economics." College of Behavioral and Social Sciences - University of Maryland - College of Behavioral & Social Sciences. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/harwood/bsosgvpt333/digital/economics.htm>.

This article discusses the economic aspect of the digital divide and how the economy plays into the digital divide.

5. Barlow, Jim. "Digital Divide Still Impacts Prospects of College Student Success." Digital Communities: Local Government News & Articles. Digital Communites, 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.digitalcommunities.com/articles/Digital-Divide-Still-Impacts-Prospects-of.html>.

This article will help me explain and relate my subject to the supposed audience: college students (and professor). The article discusses how the digital divide affects college students. How many college students have limited access to the internet despite the growing importance of the internet in college classes (whether it be typing a paper or doing research)

Web log 10

Weblog 10                                                                                                          

                A super-organism is an organism that is built out of many organisms. Facebook is most definitely a super-organism. Facebook’s size and existence was generated by the many users who use Facebook frequently. Facebook’s entire purpose is to influence interaction between its users; if no-one used Facebook, Facebook would quickly wither and die. At the same time, like a super-organism, Facebook doesn’t a single member who is more important than all the rest, and Facebook has no brain that controls its growth; its growth is dependent on its users. Facebook may have only been built by one person, but its shape and form were influenced by its many members. In these ways, Facebook is undoubtedly a super-organism.  

            WebLog 9

Emergence; it is the occurrence of a complex result or pattern caused by generally simple actions. The best example I can recall, is MySpace. MySpace has a lot of history behind it, and due the recent increase in the popularity of social sites; many people started their social networking experience with Facebook and no idea about the progression or former popularity of MySpace. MySpace had humble beginnings, it was a new idea at the time, and purely social networking website and quickly gained a huge amount of popularity.  As time moved on, it seemed like everyone was making a MySpace page, and it only grew from there. Eventually, businesses and musicians began to make MySpace pages in order to advertise and communicate with the general public; it’s the same way businesses and musicians (among other thing) have pages on Facebook.  I only witnessed MySpace’s former glory; I never created a MySpace page due to the fact that I thought that MySpace, and at the time social sites in general were pointless. I saw no point in creating an account so I can virtually befriend and communicate with the people I see every day, however, most of my friends created accounts anyways. I began to see myself become distanced from the people who created MySpace accounts as they began to created and coordinate events and post them on MySpace, and I witnessed MySpace quickly grow into a huge virtual society.

Nearly everything that could occur socially could occur on MySpace, whether it be making new friends, or advertising a new local business. MySpace emerged from a simple social site, to an online society. At the time, I still wasn’t intrigued by the idea of MySpace so I still chose to avoid it. Globally, however, it was an advancement in digital media because, it was one of the first ways for people to communicate, and share information through the internet on an organized forum type site. No good thing can last forever though, and eventually MySpace began to fall in popularity. This came about due to the constant misuse, like sexual predators and cyber bullying. This, paired with the rise of Facebook, caused the eventual “end” of MySpace.  How is this emergent behavior? It’s because it took the simple idea of having a website based mainly on social interactivity and from there created a “cyber-society,” and while MySpace itself isn’t nearly as popular as it used to be, its ideals still live on in websites like Facebook and Twitter.

Blog 7 & 8

1.)          The US government should institute formal policy that bars overseas sales of systems that provide targeted Internet surveillance if such systems are used to violate human rights or freedom of speech (such as the current internet censorship in China).

On one side, it is very immoral for private US companies to be allowed to sell internet surveillance systems to China; because it allows companies to profit by helping the Chinese government violate the human rights that the people who work in these corporations enjoy every day.  On the other side however, this is a capitalist society and lassiez-faire; which is French for ‘let do,’ is very much in affect and thus the government is not legally allowed to interfere in the workings of private companies unless they are promoting illegal activities, which they technically are not.

While morally incorrect, the actions of these private companies are completely legal, making this subject very difficult to discuss. If the American forefathers were still alive, they would have suggested not involving ourselves with foreigners in anyway, however, had America never involved itself with foreign countries, we would be very ignorant, and we would not have much of the technology and resources that we have today.

Looking at public opinion, as discussed in Therese Poletti’s news article “Chinese censorship divides America,” the American public is divided on the issue of private US companies supporting internet surveillance. “About 47 percent of 1,056 respondents said they believed content companies should not allow such censorship, while 40 percent believed companies should comply with restrictions. Thirteen percent were undecided.”(Poletti, 2007) While the survey that Poletti took is relatively small compared to the size of the American public, it still helps explain that not even the American public is completely for or against either side of the argument.

            “Obeying Orders” an article made by an anonymous author in the Washington Post discusses that it is right for private US corporations to provide their services to China, as it helps build a better relationship with China, and make society more open, even if it doesn’t necessarily support democracy. This opinion is supported by Bill Thompson in his article “Why Google in China makes sense.” Thompson argues that despite the lack of democracy in the censored Chinese Google, it still supports the sale of free information in China. Thompson also discusses that no country has a truly free and open internet; in the US, despite the 1^st Amendment guaranteeing free speech, that all search engines use their terms and conditions to limit what people can search and view on the internet. However, this kind of censorship is much less intense than the censorship in China, where anything the government deems “inappropriate” is censored without explanation of reason.


              In the Xeni Jardin’s article “Exporting Censorship,” Jardin calls it ‘laughable’ that despite the nation’s goal to support and sale free information services that American companies still sell censor-ware and censored search engines. The article “Beating back the internet censor” discusses that the sale of censor-ware shows anti-Chinese sentiment. Politicians wanted to pass the ‘Global internet freedom act,’ which would discourage censor-ware and censored hardware, however, it did not pass due to the fear of private companies completely removing their survices from China and hurting trade relations with China. America imports a large bulk of resources from China so hurting trade relations with them would be unwise.


            Considering all these factors, there is no clear answer to the situation. Due to the importance of Chinese imports, the US should continue to allow private companies to sell censor-ware and censored software, at least until the opportunity arise to coerce China into changing their internet polices.

2.) The evolving capabilities to speak out and criticize the Chinese government using microblogs and other Internet social media will lead to more and greater freedoms for the Chinese people.

This is an interesting concept to say the least, considering that the Chinese government is communist; one must also take into account the government leaders in China are very well aware of the discontent caused among the people due to the internet censorship and despite this they continue to run the way the always have. Can criticism on the internet truly make a difference?

Since China has a communist government, the Chinese people do not share in the same rights as Americans do with democracy; free speech being a very specific example of this seeing as the Chinese government covers up every piece of media that they believe may ‘endanger’ their government. The Chinese government has shown that they can be very close minded towards the opinions of other countries as well.

Not all hope is lost, many times in the past; probably the best examples being things like the American Revolution or the French Revolution; it has been shown that with enough influence that the opinions and even the structure of the government can be altered. The Chinese public using online blogs to voice their opinions and criticisms of the government shows initiative, and plain fact that they able to shows that the “great fire wall of China” isn’t so great after all. As Chinese people find more and more ways to voice their opinions, it becomes clear that the Chinese government cannot simply control it’s people like would like to. Instead, their voices will be heard and it is quite possible that china will begin listening to its people.

In Michael Bistro’s article “Can microblog’s change China’s rulers?” We can already see a shift in the government’s approach to its people. Despite the limited free speech, microblogs have hurt the Chinese government’s ability to censor and control its people and is now forcing officials in the government to change their methods.  

In the Publication of China law publication “Voices against Discrimination: Chinese Citizens Challenge Discriminatory Regulations and Practices” It develops the increasing effects of Chinese blogging and criticisms against the government. More and more, public voices are beginning to be held against the Chinese government concerning discrimination and cover-ups. As the Chinese people become increasingly aware of their human rights, the government begins to fall under the pressure and is obligated to change their methods. It is very clear that from these results that, microblogging is helping to increase the rights of the Chinese people.