Patty's Fluency Blog

Milestone 12...more thoughts on Snyder

2005-12-18T14:50:00.000-08:00

Here at Pitt during my first semester I took a class called "Introduction to Information Systems." A majority of what I read in the Snyder book was a repeat of material I had already covered. Again I feel it is meant to be an introduction and provide guidelines to what it takes to be considered "fluent"...however vague that term is.
Continuing on with my assessment of Chapters 8-10, 12, and 17.
There is some discussion of the processes behind how the computer works, and other things which I found to be a repeat of material already covered in other classes.
Around chapter 10 though we dive into some new material. Algorithms. The word itself is something you know you know, but can be difficult to define. Personally I see it as a set of steps leading to a desired result. Kind of like a baking recipe. Snyder feels that if we know the processes behind why a computer does what it does, one will be one step closer to fluency.
There are five steps to an algorithm. Input, output, definiteness, effectiveness, and finitness. Applying that to baking (I work as a baker right now)...input are the ingredients (eggs, milk, butter, etc.), output is the cake or final product, definiteness are the steps you take combining the input to produce the output (mix 2 eggs, 1 cup milk, etc.), effectiveness is like if you did all the steps right in the definitieness stage then there is no reason your cake shouldn't turn out to be delicious without any extra means being taken, and finiteness when the cake is done and the whole process is stopped.
I had never been introduced to algorithms or algorithmic thinking. It was really interesting and I found that I really understood more when I took what I was reading and applied to to a process such as baking or something else you might not really think as having an appliable algorithm. For the most part when I thought "algorithm" I thought "math" or "numbers". But that does not have to be the case.
Again maybe I take for granted that most people know about email or computer viruses. Snyder devotes a whole chapter to discussing email, passwords, and computer viruses. At the end he talks a little about the sticky situation of copyright. Copyright is another topic that is brought up in a majority of my class. Usually it relates to print material though, not electronic. Although I think many of the same issues can be had with both formats.
Finally in chapter 17 we talk about digital security. Privacy seems to be a big issue after things like "The Patriot Act". There is a lot of discussion about the different definitions of privacy and how it is applied. I didn't know there were so many previous privacy acts, but it makes sense when you think about it. When I read the section on idenity theft I kept thinking of those television commercials with the fraudulant credit card purchases. They make me laugh...not the situation, but how it is presented.
One other topic that I think was presented in just about every course I've taken is the importance of backing up your work. Early on it was "make sure you save" and now with all the different things that can befall your computer it's "do you have a backup copy." And we have all experienced that with something getting deleted, a disk messing up, the format in general you saved material on, emails not sending, etc.
So I guess in terms of how Snyder views the term "fluency" and his goals for this book there was a lot of good information presented and issues raised. This may be a lot for someone who is victim of the digital divide to handle all at once, so I think it is important for these issues to be presented in a timely manner during the process of instruction for greater effectiveness.

Milestone 11...for my own satisfaction

2005-12-18T14:12:00.000-08:00

This post is in response to the readings in Chapter 2-7 of the Synder book.

The Snyder book is called "Fluency with Information Technology Skills, Concepts, & Capabilities". Over the course of the semester we talked about that term, 'fluency'. Snyder says "To become Fluent, we must learn the language of information technology."
Personally speaking, for someone of my generation to be so far behind in a form of technology such as a computer completely blows my mind. I remember in elementary school being introduced to the computer, in middle school being required to take typing courses and other computer office skill courses, and even in high school being taken to the computer lab to do work.
I had exposure to the internet in high school, but always with some purpose never just surfing around to see what I could find. In college though, that all changed. I found myself up all night seeing what the internet had to over. Ironically it wasn't until I went to college that my parents finally got internet at our house...which I moved out of when I was 18.
The internet became like my mother's new toy. She took classes to learn about it, she paid her bills online, and overall just thought it was great. The direct opposite of that is my stepfather who won't touch the computer, can't turn it on, and when my mother was sick did not know the methodology behind her bill paying habits. The computer now sits collecting dust.
Why did I go on that trip down memory lane? Because my first impressions of the Snyder book is that the topics covered and the structure are a lot like the heirarchy of how things should be presented to those just entering into the world of information technology. And that's probably it's intention.
In the beginning one would be taught about how to use the buttons, learn what the desktop is, different menu commands, and one operation being obtainable two different ways, etc. We'll call these the basics. From these basics almost any program can be tackled given some time and outside instruction if needed.
Later on one would learn about the Internet. Which would cover everything from the language of the Internet, how it can be used, and what it could mean for the future.
In probably every class I have taken at Pitt, we have discussed the Internet. Mainly how it is important to educate people about the questionable validity of items found on there. Snyder discusses how to test the authenticity of sites and also the roles that libraries play in this online society. I can't say that I have ever been in a library where they did not offer computer class. Sooner or later the class tries to tackle the Internet. So I think that libraries are the perfect places for people to learn about how to assess a website, and learn about computers in general. Libraries are also great because they usually have a vast collection of online materials which help further patrons understanding of E-materials and how to access them.

Missing presentation

2005-12-18T14:04:00.000-08:00

Since I did not get to present my project in front of the class I will just say a few more things about future considerations if I had to do it all again. I put most of my notes and data from the experiment on this flog to begin with, so you know where I'm starting from.
If I had to do it again I would have included one or two victims of the digital divide. I mainly used people my age because I figured they would already be familiar with the formats and it would show the level of political involvement of this generation. But what would the test have been like using someone who did not know the format of the online session. Would this new experience have been excepted or cursed in their assessment of the whole thing?
Also I might have done some comparison on the basis of gender. To see whether there are more of one gender choicing one format or citing one specific reason as to their choices, etc.
There are probably a few other things that you might even be able to think of that might have created more layers to the experiment, but those are two I thought of...after the fact of course. I could have still done the gender element, but I would have preferred a even number of both genders represented in the test.

milestone 10

2005-12-06T16:00:00.000-08:00

Here were my assumptions before starting this experiment...

- A majority of people my age are not that politically involved or discuss politics, which is part of the reason for the narrow age range of subjects.
- Political discussions would probably be had between participants and their peers and probably a result of an assignment or major world event ("hot issue").
- That the participants would favor the online chat based deliberation because of the anonymity and the leisure that surrounds being in your own environment.
- If more involvement could be had online, I thought people would be more inclined to participant in their government.
- A majority of the participants would be intimidated by the face-to-face deliberation.
- Participants would have a few suggestions for future deliberations.

My assessment of the experiment itself:

- As to be expected the roundtable deliberation seemed somewhat labored, but once we got into a topic the ball just kept rolling.
- Most of the topics the participants stated as interesting to them were discussed.
- I tried not to get involved at all, but in one or two instances I had to suggest a topic to keep things going.
- The face-to-face deliberation seemed rather polite. My suspicions were that they were intimidated by the situation.

- I felt the online deliberation was rather unorganized due to everyone entering comments and the same time, and if you were commenting on something already said you may or may not realize it due to the other comments posted before yours.
- Every once in awhile some participants would use the smiley expressions available through America Online Instant Messenger to further their message.
- Perhaps it is because of the hectic nature of the forum that participants seemed more involved.

My conclusions...
- There is not enough information out there about digital/online/computer based forums for citizens to be more involved in their government and it's decisions.
- People feel that they have no voice in the government or little voice, and it should be increased.
- No one forum was drastically favored over the other, but the online chat did get a more favorable response.
- While people do like anonymity, they also like being able to get a feel for people that you can only get face-to-face (expression, tone, voice volume).
- People would probably be more inclined to participate and get involved in more aspects of governance if they were able to do so online.

milestone 9

2005-12-06T15:31:00.000-08:00

There were five participants in my experiment. Rather than scanning all the questionnaires I will provide a summary of the information.

First Questionnaire

1. Participants were all 23-26 years old.

2. Three participants voted in the last Presidential election.

3. Topics of interest (which were used as fuel for the deliberations): abortion, foreign and domestic policies, fair law making, human rights, public policy, and as one person wrote "whatever topics effect me directly".

4. All participants stated they did not regularly discuss politics or government.

5. So I guess that's not very often.

6. Three participants stated discussions usually happen while watching the news, and two stated they usually happen just in social gatherings with friends.

7. All participants stated these discussions are had among people their own age, roommates, and friends.

8. Only two participants were aware of any online/digital/computer based forums for political involvement.

9. All participants stated that the level of citizen involvement in the government is minimal and should be increased. One person went so far as to say they didn't believe citizens had any part in government decisions.

Second Questionnaire

1. Three of the participants favored the online chat based forum over the face-to-face forum.

2. The reasons for favoring the online forum were the level of anonymity and their lack of inhibitions. The reasons for favoring the face-to-face forum were getting more subcommunication from the other people involved, and being able to get a better feel for the other participants.

3. Four of the participants were more comfortable with the online forum.

4. Here are a few answers for how the participants level of comfort was different between formats: "I like being able to look at people when they talk, but when I speak I prefer the online chat." "The online was more comfortable because I could do it from my own home, but you lose the feeling behind why other people feel the way they do." "I am more comfortable online when I am discussing the straight facts."

5. Three participants said they would probably be more involved if more things could be done online, and two said their involvement would probably remain the same.

6. Only one participant said they were intimidated by the face-to-face deliberation.

7. The participant said their speech was not really altered, but they felt the need to be less argumentative.

8. Only one person had a suggestion for future deliberation. The person suggested having a moderator for the online chat because it was hard to get comments out before others commented.

milestone 8

2005-12-06T15:14:00.000-08:00

This post is a little late due to the stress of what seems like a million projects all being due at the same time.

My final project for this little experiment called Digital Governance was a mainly inspired by Beth Simone Noveck's "Unchat: Democratic Solution for a Wired World." Her essay examined using a chat room or instant messenger like forum for political discussions.
I did a comparison of a roundtable face-to-face political deliberation to a online chat based political deliberation. I had the participants fill out a questionnaire at the beginning of the experiment and then a second questionnaire at the end of the experiment.
It wasn't a shock to me that it was really hard to find people (especially near the end of the semester) willing to donate some time to participate in this project. I tried to keep the questionnaires simple and to the point.
First Questionniare
Second Questionnaire

for all you dead fans....

2005-12-04T12:29:00.000-08:00

"Band changes their mind about banning free downloads"

Digital nugget

2005-12-04T12:21:00.000-08:00

So I was reading this article on CNN.com "Specter: Alito said he will respect abortion precedents".
In the article it states that "Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had a private meeting with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday as he sought to reassure lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside". To me that seems like such a loaded statement.
"With my personal views aside" is one of those statements that you say, but may or may not be able to follow. Especially I believe if you are a politican. It seems like they are all in it for their own reasons. That statement is right up there with the old "we'll still be friends" line.

milestone 7

2005-11-30T13:02:00.000-08:00

So today on the bus I was thinking about this whole digital governance thing. I was thinking about my own reasons for being so uninterested in governance (mainly political in nature) and if there were more actions that could be done from the comfort of my home behind a screen, would I? It's hard to say. I do believe though that more and more people are becoming computer dependent. It's like a crisis if the internet is down for more than a few hours anymore. People are more computer literate now then a few years ago and those who aren't are slowly being extinct. I believe this pattern will only continue with future generations and the possibilities of technology are endless.
I think that governance and government should embrace new technology and take advantage of it. If they really want people to become involved then they should explore all possibilites. In my opinion I believe there would be more activity if more things could be done by people simply using their computers. Of course it may take time for the phenomena to really get going and take hold, but with the right marketing and promotion of these new methods they may really catch on. And if not with current generations then certainly with future ones.

milestone 6

2005-11-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

My last post was about how in theory our government sounds good, but in practice it has many flaws...or has come to have many flaws over the years. This is again about some issues I have with the policies of our great nation.
One of the issues I think of is that of health care. The price for medical treatment is enough to make your head spin. Especially if you are unforunate enough to have no insurance, and even if you have insurance you may have a select number of physicians you can visit or encounter other problems. Why can't we take a tip from our neighbors up north and somehow have free health care? Or atleast figure out a way of lowering the costs of medical treatment. So many people are in need, but don't have the money. *shakes head*
Another issue which I have is taxes. I'm not saying that we shouldn't pay taxes, but anything they can find a way to put a tax on, they will. I have two stories. The first is that of inheritance tax. It's really sad that after you clear away the costs of that final resting place (which is not cheap by any means), if you were fortunate enough to have anything left to you by the deceased you then have to pay a tax on it. Meanwhile it's just sad that they wanted you to have something, and you have to pay a tax on it. Not to mention the fact that the person was most likely paying some kind of tax on the money at one point or another while they were living, so why can't the government be happy with that fact and less money hungry?
I had a conversation today at work with a man who had a friend that won a car in a raffle last year. He told me that afterwards his friend wished he had never won it because of all the taxes he had to pay. The man had to take another morgage on his house to pay them. He did it though, because his wife really wanted the car.
I guess one could argue that the portion we pay in taxes really is just a small percent of the total value of the item in question, but in these two cases taxing just doesn't seem fair.
The government really is a body with no heart and soul.

Milestone 5

2005-11-20T12:58:00.000-08:00

So lately I've been watching that HBO series "Rome". I know it's just a television show, but it got me thinking about the set up of our government.
Now in theory our government sounds good. We hold elections to appoint people, and in theory those people are supposed to fight for the interests of the people. Then we have this one "Commander-in-Chief" who is supposed to protect the interests of the country as a whole and be in the position to have the final say on what is good for the future of the country and it's people.
Somewhere along the line though, things got pretty screwed up. Maybe it's just that we don't have any good politicians anymore. Not to say that we ever did. But I think that politicians today are too interested in themselves and the big payoff. They don't really care what the common person thinks. They really aren't doing things for the common man so much as they are acting to further their own careers or lobbying for their own interests.
Who's fault is it? The common man for allowing this to happen in a government "ruled by the people"? The common man for not voting "the right man for the job" into office? Or the politicians for abusing the power we have entrusted to them?

Wikipedia idea rip off nugget

2005-11-16T13:12:00.000-08:00

"Is Google ripping off Wikipedia?"

Maybe this all goes back to my post about how nothing is entirely original anymore. So now Google is going to let anyone upload anything to a searchable database. Just like Wikipedia lets anyone contribute information to their site. It's kinda different and maybe the context is slightly original, but when I saw the article I thought of Wikipedia.

Milestone 4

2005-11-16T12:55:00.000-08:00

It's nearing the end of the semester and with that said the dread of a final project or paper is hanging over my head. For me to write a 20 page paper on an area which I have no background knowledge before this class, would be quite labor intensive. Not to say I couldn't do it, and maybe even do it well, but you really don't get as much out of a paper as you do a project.
I decided to compare a roundtable political deliberation with a online chat based deliberation. The only snag right now is that I'm having trouble rounding up participants. Could it be that everyone is either too busy or too uninterested to want to be bothered? Or maybe my fliers are just to dull and boring?
Either way I'm setting into panic mode. This is the only class I am worried about. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let myself be talked into a class or staying with a class that is completely foreign to me when everyone else always has something to say.
I suppose this post has read more like a diary entry than a milestone. But the milestone is supposed to chart our steps toward fluency. Right now I'm at the step of panic in my fluency experience and the hurdles ahead.

Milestone 3

2005-11-09T18:02:00.000-08:00

So we're reading Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity". In the beginning he talks a lot about piracy, and how it can be good. The whole time I'm thinking of this instance in high school when I was out with my then boyfriend. I was mocking this group of teeny boppers (you know the type, they all look the same except they have different colors of the same shirt or something), and my boyfriend looks at me and says "Come now Patty, you must know that nothing is original anymore."
Very true statement. I'll just let you ponder that. Go ahead, look around you. Look at the movies that are coming out...it seems like a movie will come out and then a month later you see the same plot regurgitated and marketed in a new movie. But then again, where would we be without people taking and using other people's ideas? So you decide for yourself which is worse.

Bush nugget

2005-11-08T11:22:00.000-08:00

Here are some of my favorite passages from the article on CNN.com "Bush Campaigns in Virginia's Governor Race"

1. "Despite his own political woes and declining popularity..."

Maybe he didn't know this IS a popularity contest.

2. "Bush called Kilgore "a man of character and integrity"..."

Who essentially lies to get what he wants.

3. "With Bush's poll numbers plummeting and beset by problems like the war in Iraq, the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of a senior White House aide in the CIA leak probe, Democrats hoped the president's 11th-hour appearance for Kilgore would instead motivate their own supporters."

Motivate them how, when Bush is having problems motivating his own supporters?

4. "Some political analysts have suggested that even Republicans might try to distance themselves from Bush now that his job approval rating is at an all-time low."

But not Kilgore.

5. "Kilgore welcomed Bush as "a great leader for our commonwealth and for our country.""

You know, the great leader with the declining popularity.

6. "Late last month, Kilgore avoided a Bush speech on anti-terrorism in Norfolk, Virginia, a move that was widely regarded as a sign that the president might do more harm than good in a close race."

So last month Bush would have hurt Kilgore's votes, but in the 11th hour he's rushed in to try and scrounge him up more? Hmmm...

digital nugget Wikipedia style

2005-11-05T18:11:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia is taking over the web and soon print. Possibly DVDs, and CDs as well. Print Wiki I wonder if this may make it more acceptable in some professor's eyes as a valid resource for research. Because yes Piotr, some professor frown upon it's use.

milestone 2?

2005-11-05T15:31:00.000-08:00

During the last meeting of our Digital Governance class we discussed how the government is starting to act like a business. Or is trying to act more like a business. I believe it was Eva who mentioned something about Amazon and how they have recommendation lists for customers based on previous purchases.
Wouldn't it be weird if the government could adopt that same formula for voting? So each election year you would receive a list of recommended candidates based on your previous voting habits. This could be based on your stand on issues, party affiliation, anything. So unless your feelings changed radically between elections, it's almost like you wouldn't really even need to vote. Your votes would all be pre-supposed based on your previous actions. A move towards a society without polls where your votes would be assumed, and if you vote once you really wouldn't have to vote again until your views changed. Or maybe you could just submit a form notifying the govenment of your change of view, and they would send you new recommendations. Maybe more people would vote if that one vote would be their political contribution and carry over to similiar candidates for an undetermined amount of time in an undetermined amount of elections.
Just a thought.

Beierle paper

2005-10-25T13:56:00.000-07:00

Okay so for this week we had the pleasure of reading Thomas Beierle's "Digital Deliberation: Engaging the Public Through Online Policy Dialogues". I have to tell you I read this article twice and then scratched my head at the thought of having to write a paper about it, but I guess I have to give it a shot.
The essay begins by stating the desire for more public participation. Both online and offline, and how public agencies are starting to use a wide variety of processes to get the public to participate. Beierle points out that there are two main categories that these processes tend to fall into: "small face-to-face deliberation focused on problem solving and consensus building, and the second being designed to accommodate large groups in a less interactive mode of discourse".
The next few paragraphs discuss how the internet can change all this. Making it possible for large groups in participate in dynamic deliberations. This is the point where Beierle introduces what the essay is largely about. "Examining online dialogues as a innovative form of public expression." The source for this examination is the Environmental Protection Agency drafting it's Public Involvement Policy.
The different characteristics of participation processes are discussed, some key features the dialogue should have, statistics on how people participated, informed participation, deliberative participation (including six steps that the deliberation should proceed through), and credibility and results. The conclusion states what this dialogue demonstrated as well as how future efforts should be approached.
The entire time I was reading this article I was thinking about our last class when we went to the lab. A thread discussion was started and each of us was seated in front of a computer and asked (forced?...just kidding) to participate. There have also been other thread discussions started and continued during the course of this class so far, but having us all trying to post at one time was quite different.
We started the class by trying to hold an "unchat". I found the whole thing quite chaotic. Everyone was trying to post at once, and by the time you finished typing your response to something that was said the topic had changed. It was near impossible to keep up, reading or typing.
The threaded discussion went a little smoother. Yes, everyone was still contributing at the same time, but response rate was not as big an issue. Personally, I could take my time reading someone's thread, think about it, and then respond. It really didn't matter how much time I took.
I think that may have been one of the point's Beierle was trying to impress. With this online deliberation in the form of threads for instance. It gives people a chance to participate, but at their own pace. Some people (myself included) feel obligated to contribute something. I think once you get people participating, then you can work out some of the kinks such as how they are participating or trying to tackle those six steps that deliberation should proceed through.

Noveck Paper

2005-10-15T17:18:00.000-07:00

I was quite intruiged by Beth Simone Noveck's essay "Unchat: Democratic Solution for a Wired World". Right at the beginning it is established that deocracy is only half about free speech and the other half about deliberation. Deliberation is a way of approaching problem-solving where open, equal, and reasoned discussion and viewpoints are had by all members of the community. In this article Noveck explores the creation and possible advancements that could be made in technology and software to facilitate Web-based democratic deliberation.

What exactly should the design guidelines and procedures be for this Web-based deliberation?

-Accessibility: The deliberative conversation must be accessible to everyone, easy to reach, and unhindered by different operating systems.
-No Censorship: The space must safeguard freedom of thought and expression and be free of censorship (including self censorship).
-Autonomy: Participants are self-governing, and have play an active part in deliberation.
-Accountability: Participants cannot be anonymous. They must be accountable not only in cyberspace, but real space.
- Transparency: The participants have the right to know about the space they are deliberating in, any monitoring that is taking place, and any biases that may exist.
-Equality: All participants should have equal opportunity to be heard and contribute.
-Pluralism: To ensure everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard, some regulations may be had to give everyone a voice.
-Inclusiveness: The space must be intended to include all members of the relevant community.
-Staying Informed: Participants must base their judgements on information from a wide variety of viewpoints.
-Publicness: The dialogue should represent the interests of the community as a whole and not individuals or a small group within the community.
-Facilitation: Participants must be managed in some form to make deliberation more orderly and easy.

The next section of the essay consisted of two examples in which this deliberative theory was put into use. The first was with Yale Law School International Cyberlaw students being connected with representatives from around the world. The second was with high school students from different settings. The second example allowed the students the option of "shouting" a message interrupting the deliberation, and "whispering" which is a private message between two participants. Neither messages go through the moderator, but a limit was set on the number of times one could use this power.

As we continue in the essay, Noveck explores how each design guideline was put into practice for the "Unchat" software. Such things are discussed as to why accountability can play such a cruicial role, the issue of relevance and responsiviness, and the selection of a moderator and the responsibility in deliberation. The "shout" and "whisper" options are also discussed further as well as methods of archiving and keeping chat (or Unchat) logs for the sake of staying informed.

Noveck concludes by restating what the goal of "Unchat" was as well as where development could lead in terms of new options and features. Exploring human expression beyond the "shout" and "whisper", the option of keeping things off the logs, and the possibility of allowing anonymity. I think that "Unchat" sounds like a great deliberation tool. That is if you are able to collect a good unbiased sample of the community and jump the digital divide (if need be).

Samuel paper

2005-10-11T11:32:00.000-07:00

Okay so I have been staring at the screen for awhile trying to decide what I am supposed to write in response to reading Alexandra Samuel's article this week. I guess I'm just going to wing it, and if I say something silly or off the mark please don't laugh. With that said here is my paper on Samuel's article.

Whenever I chose Alexandra Samuel's article "Hacktivism and the Future of Democratic Discourse" as one that I would like to write a paper on, it was partially because of the hacker aspect. Computer hacking is something that has fascinated me for some time. Whenever I think of hacking, I usually think of invading systems in some way with either a malicious intent or a general want to keep the flow of information free. I never really considered that hacking could be used in that way as a form of political activism. Although after reading this article it seems completely reasonable.
Hacktivism is a combination of computer hacking and political activism. Samuel begins the article with the first widely known example of hacktivism as well as what exactly constitutes hacktivism. Such acts of hacktivism include: site defacement, site redirects, information theft either with the intent to distribute or not, site parodies, viruses, virtual sit-ins, and software development for the sake of political purposes. Throughout the rest of the article Samuel examines the challenges to deliberative concepts of free speech and accountability that hacktivism raises.
There are three different kinds of hactivism which Samuel terms: political cracking, performative hacktivism, and political coding. Political crackers come mostly from a hacker background and are interested in protesting or influencing policy. Performative hacktivists are mostly from artistic backgrounds and are also interested in protesting or influencing policy. Political coders are mainly from hacker backgrounds and are interested in circumventing public policy.
In the next few sections of the article Samuel examines each of these clusters of hacktivism more in depth. Discussing some incidents of political activism exercised by each group respectively, a vague demographic of the usual members, and their goals. Samuel discusses each of these groups so that once we understand their principles we can see where they stand on the issues of free speech and accountability.
Free speech is a main point for deliberation. Free speech on the internet relating to hacktivism can get to be a sticky subject. Especially when it comes to things like site defacement. In defacing a site, you are violating someone's free speech. But by the same token hacktivist like political coders are more interested in allowing free speech on the web. For instance trying to free the flow of information in countries where the government may be controling what can and can not be accessed by it's people.
There was a good point raised in the article about free speech. A hacktivist could just as easily create a site to get there opinions out there, but they would lack an audience. In the forms of political activism they take in dealing with other people's sites they are sure to get an audience because the site has an already existing audience. The people are there for taking so to speak.
In class we seem to discuss anonymity on a regular basis. There is a sort of freedom that goes along with the web. I can be just about anyone on the web, and no one will know the difference. And because I have no fear of being known, I have no fear or hestitation to speak my mind. In the next section Samuel discusses the debate over this freedom as a good thing, and this freedom as a way for people to evade the responsibility of their statements.
Each form of hacktivism has it's own position when it comes to anonymity. Samuel goes into detail about each group and whether or not a majority use pseudonyms and if the pseudonyms may be traceable. These uses of pseudonyms play into accountability. The use of a pseudonym makes you accountable to no one in a sense, while using your real identity could travel off the web and into your everyday life.
Samuel raised these points of hacktivism mostly because it is the goal of some hacktivists to make software and tools available to everyone that will take the restrictions of free speech away from those that seek to control it and put it in the hands of those that wish to have it. And this could mean big things in the way of government and online deliberations.

public sphere

2005-10-05T20:15:00.001-07:00

The readings for this week seemed to deal a lot with the 'public sphere' as it pertains to the internet. I do not believe that any author was trying to impress that the internet would magically and immediately turn into this open forum for political movements and discussion (and they would be naive to think that from my perspective), but I feel that they might hold some hope that someday it might be a more active place for such actions.
The internet is definitely a new way of communicating and sharing ideas with many people. Someday this might even involve politics. However right now we have to deal with issues such as the digital divide, people concerned with their own agendas, and the fact that anyone can say anything while hiding behind their screens and fake names.
There are organizations on the internet such as Wiki that seem to be moving more towards a free forum of truth and collaboration with many people working towards one thing for the public good. Maybe one day this will also apply to politics and governance. There is hope for a kind of digital democracy, but I think it's a distant dream at this point.

The Digital Divide

2005-09-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

The topic of "the digital divide" is something that I think we have discussed in each of my Library and Information Science classes at one time or another in some context. Until reading the essay by Peter Muhlberger "Access, Skill, and Motivation in Online Political Discussion: Testing Cyberrealism" I never thought about how something like the digital divide could be applied to politics. I always thought of the digital divide as like a gap between those with the access to the information and online skills and those without. Why shouldn't political information be included?
People use computers and the Internet everyday for all sorts of different purposes. I know a few people that their main source of political news and indeed their only involvement with politics is online. I think that the main factor is motivation. A number of households in the United States have computers with internet access, and those without the access might have a library or other resource that they can use to get online. With each generation the children are becoming more and more net savy, and those without the skills once again may have the opportunity to learn the skills. But what it really comes down to for me is motivation. Motivation is the factor that really can't be taught or remedied by a local organization. There are ways around the first two factors of the digital divide (if you want there to be), but the third is a hurdle.

if you can call this a milestone....call it the first

2005-09-21T12:31:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be completely honest and ignorant in saying that I have never really had an interest in governance. I was pushed into taking this class, and decided to stick with it and try something new. So this class is really just about opening myself up to something, that again to be ignorant, I never really gave much thought to. I hope that my future milestones chart my thinking and gaining more of an understanding of what exactly constitutes "digital governance". For this one I really just wanted to show that I'm starting from stratch.

Is this thing on?

2005-09-14T12:14:00.000-07:00

Hey this is me typing my first blog posting. Hope you were as excited about that as I was. Now back to our regularly scheduled program already in progress.