Philosophy 101E

The Internet has had a tremendous affect on how we communicate, possibly the greatest change that has been taken in the past few decades. No longer do we have to spend time using a phone or meeting somewhere, instead we can talk to each other electronically. With the simple click of the mouse, we can send emails around the world quicker than you can say “email”. While emails are indeed a popular form of communication, instant and text messaging have taken over how we communicate with each other. Right on the phone, companies have developed a way for us to talk to other people without actually talking into the phone. Want to get some people together for a movie without having to deal with the hassle of calling all of them individually? Just send a single text message to multiple friends and it can be done in less than a few minutes. I believe that this advancement in technology has been good for society.

Websites, such as Facebook and Myspace are able to make long distance communication very simple. People are able to share photos and journal entries with all their friends instead of having to do it individually. There are message boards that bring together people with similar interests, while others can bring together people with certain problems that can offer help to them. Long lost friends have been found on websites like these and along with that, new friendships have also been made. In the case of Internet dating websites, the bond of marriage was created. Sure, these form of communication may not be as mutual as one on one conversations, the fact still remains that many positive things result from this type of communication. If I wanted to, I could easily call my friends to talk with them, but why should I when I could multitask by talking to them with relative ease on the Internet.

A topic that we did not get to today was on Internet collaboration. Frank had mentioned the Postal Service. Upon some research, the amount of collaboration on the Postal Service’s album was quite limited. It would seem that one guy would create some beats and send it to the other guy, who would write and record everything else. The first guy then had some final input into whether or not he liked it.

I think this here is sort of a clear case of why Dreyfus thinks that Internet collaborations are insufficient. The collaborative creativity was taken out of the equation when the Postal Service merely shared a beat. Before any of you Postal Service fans get upset, I do actually like the album. I do not think it lacks anything that most albums nowadays lack regardless of whether or not everyone is in the studio at the same time.

For me, and I would think Dreyfus would agree, the ultimate example of collaborative playing is in a jazz combo. That is a small jazz ensemble meant for playing more improvisational jazz songs, for those of you who have never heard the term. In a jazz combo, everyone plays together and reacts to each other. The important part of this interaction is what you could call a “feedback loop.” That is to say, if the drummer plays something and the bassist reacts to that, but then the drummer reacts to the bassist’s reaction, you have a feedback loop. There is no definite end.

The reason most current songs lack this is because of multi-track recording. In multi-track recording, parts are recorded individually and combined in either a computer or onto multi-track media. This would seem to be a good thing for musicians to play off of and react to each other. However, there is no feedback in the process. Once the drummer records his part, it is set in stone unless the part or sections are rerecorded. The guitarist may be able to react to the drummer’s part, but that’s the end of the line.

This is basically what the whole Internet deficiency for human interaction. There is no real-time, 100%, feel of being with and reacting to another human. Regardless of how transparent the interface for interacting with another is, it still lacks that spiritual warmth of sharing space with a person. I will admit that meaningful relationships may develop through connections on the Internet, but you can never do a trust fall with an AIM friend. And we all know that trust falls are what make human relationships real.

The discussion of network neutrality was really interesting to me. What the basis of this controversy is that telecommunication companies like SBC are complaining that websites like google and skype are using their Internet to provide some type of service to customers. In order to prevent this, those companies would make customers take preferred pathway in order for them to view that site. As a result, the companies providing the services would have to pay additional money in order to have this specific pathway. In turn, the telecommunication companies would have all control over the Internet, which terminates all type of network neutrality.

While I understand that internet service is a business and some of these companies feel like they can make that extra dollar by doing this, I am against any type of violation against network neutrality. I believe that the Internet should be used how people want it to be used. I already pay enough to get these services from the ISP companies and I should have the right to view whatever website I want without being restricted from services like google just because the company feels like it. The only thing that should be restricted to people are things that are illegal or pose some type of harm to society.

If we give these telecommunication companies such as SBC total control over the World Wide Web, that would fall under the category of a monopoly. As has been shown many times throughout history, monopolies cause more harm then good. In the long run, most of the harm will just fall on the customer. The only thing I fear is that these telecommunication companies have developed a very strong relationship with the government. Our government is obviously very powerful and in turn can have a large say on whether this bill passes or not.

     When I first heard that we were going to have to read a book about how humans are cyborgs, I immediately thought that this was going to be a book that I would hate reading.  Men as machines is something that just does not appeal to me, and I thought that reading about it would be boring.  However, after reading the first chapter of Natural-Born Cyborgs, I found myself completely agreeing with Clark.  I think what made me agree with Clark was the way he used wording in his book.  He doesn’t simply say that men are machines, rather what Clark argues is that technology constitutes “”a cascade of mindware upgrades”: cognitive upheavals in which the effective architecture of the human mind is altered and transformed”.  What makes us cyborgs is the fact that our use of technology has become so crucial in our lives that it has changed the way our brains function and made it harder to distinguish what is human intelligence from what is human intelligence aided by technological tools. 

     Clark gives the cell phone as an example of how we have become cyborgs.  He discusses how we all get so wrapped up in text messaging and talking on the phone with others that we often seem to be leading divided lives.  On the one hand, we are in the space that we are physically occupying, but on the other hand, our minds are with the people that we are talking to.  I know that when I am talking to someone on the phone, my mind gets completely wrapped up in that conversation that I sometimes lose sight of where I actually am.  The same thing happens when I am texting with someone.  Physically I may be in class, but mentally I am with that person and focused on whatever it is that we are talking about.  Another way that I think my cell phone has become a part of me is just the fact that when I don’t have it with me or within my reach, I feel as if a part of me is missing.  I never feel comfortable when I don’t have my phone because I feel as though any communication that I have with the world has been totally cut off.  In reality this is not the case, but I rely on my phone so much to communicate with others that I feel as if it is my only means of communication with the world.

     The cell phone is one example among many that Clark gives, but I think it is the one that stands out the most and that almost all of us can probably relate to.  I doubt that I am the only one that feels lost without a cell phone and that relies on it for so many parts of my life.  I think that with all of the advancements in technology that have happened and are happening at this very moment, it is almost inevitable for us to become so integrated with it.  We have become one with technology in so many ways that we can no longer really doubt that we are what Clark refers to as natural-born cyborgs. 

I’m not going to talk about one specific book or one specific topic, that we discussed in class, I am going to address the whole thought of us being cyborgs. A lot of the time that we spend in class was spent with us discussing if we where like machines or if machines are able to think for themselves or if machines will one day take over. I think that in a way we are just like machines I say this because machines are programmed and only know what they are programmed to know. Also when playing chess a machine learns from his opponent’s moves and is ready for that opponent the next time. Well we as humans are not programmed but we are also thought good and bad and right and wrong. Also like machines we learn from are mistakes and are ready for the next time. However I don’t think that they will take over one day because I think that we are smarter than they are simply for the fact that we created them. What I do think is that one day it will get to the point that we won’t know what to do without them, because they are becoming such an important part of our daily life. I think that machines are just like cell phones and are such an important part of our daily life that we can’t be without them. I think that at this time we would be lost without technology because that’s all we know. Is like when you get use to your cell phone but the day you don’t have it feels like you are missing a part from you. I also don’t think that machines are able to think for themselves although they are able to learn from their mistakes or from what others due they can’t have their own ideas or thought. They also don’t have feeling like we do but they can be program to want something like to win or beat the opponent. Overall I think that humans will always be dominant over anything else but in a way we are also machines and are thought right from wrong, good and bad and learn from our mistakes but have the advantage to think and feel.

We discussed in class about how Dreyfus thought that technology could possibly cause us to lead lives without meaning. Daniel summed up Dreyfus’s views by saying something along the lines of whatever hugs do for people, e-hugs will never be able to. I think Dreyfus meant for this statement to be hypothetical, but with advances in technology, the actual idea of an e-hug is becoming more and more plausible.

The appropriately named company CuteCircuit has several projects in the works that attempt to make technology more user friendly. Most of their projects incorporate some type of computing device into clothing. In this sense, we are coming that much closer to being one with technology, as Clark thinks. The most interesting and pertinent piece that they are working on now is the Hug Shirt. This is their description:

“The Hug Shirt is a shirt that makes people send hugs over distance! Embedded in the shirt there are sensors that feel the strength of the touch, the skin warmth and the heartbeat rate of the sender and actuators that recreate the sensation of touch, warmth and emotion of the hug to the shirt of the distant loved one.”

You can send and receive hugs through normal cell phones. The shirt “encodes” the hug before sending it out to whomever you choose. While this won’t be exactly like a real hug, it’s the next best thing to receiving a real one when you’re restrained distance. It’s a warm gesture that expresses how one feels. Besides, it’s the thought behind the action that really counts.

In addition, Cisco System has developed a conference system called TelePresence. It promises to bring people together even across great distances. The video pretty much explains everything.

With these new technologies emerging, we can now find out what their true potentials really are instead open ended debates with no resolution. Even though these existing technologies may not be able to prove Dreyfus wrong, we will be able to learn from these devices’ shortcomings and continually improve upon them. Maybe someday, e-hugs will be able to do whatever real hugs can.

So as this semester comes to an end we have learned many things about philosophy and how it has related to technology. We can see that the world we live in today is definitely a digital one. In one way or another, every person has been affected by technology. When I look back at my lifetime and think of how far technology has come in that little amount of time, I can’t help but wonder what we can look forward to with technology. Does it have borders or are the possibilities endless? One thing I have noticed with technology advances in my lifetime is that new technologies usually emerge independently and then as they advance they merge with other technologies. Take cellular phones and the internet for example. They both emerged as separate entities and now the advances of technology allow us to browse the web on our cell phones or place a phone call from the internet. I think the technologies that we have to look forward to in the future are going to harness our favorite and everyday essential technologies into one powerful tool that can “do it all” if you will.

Along with the anticipation and excitement of new technology, I can’t help to be a little concerned that the next wave of technology, especially pertaining to the internet. It is scary when with one tool, a total stranger can look up a property that you own, find your address, a layout of the home, and a picture of the house, all in the public domain. Maybe my concern in this regard will pave the way for a technology in the future to safeguard ones personal information or perhaps revolutionalize the way that data is stored and shared in a way that one can not even dream of in this day and age. Only time will tell. What do you guys think?

In class before break we talked about how text messaging and other forms of technological communication cannot take the place of actual one-on-one communication in person. Gone are the days of the Beat generation when people hitchhiked across the country to meet friends sending only a letter stating, “I’ll be in D.C. between Christmas and New Years.” The world today displays much different forms of communication that are geared more towards the new advancements in technology such as text messaging, cell phones, e-mail, the internet, etc. These days you cannot hang out with a group of friends for more than an hour without one being interrupted by a cell phone call. With the increasing amount of communication expressed via technology today, it seems that actual face-to-face communication has become almost unnecessary in many situations. It seems that many people are now met through other forms of communications such as facebook or myspace, where a person can access the internet and meet complete strangers throughout the world that share common interests with them. Although this may seem very superficial because a person has met only through computer screen and possible posted pictures, this type of communication can lead to people connecting at a different level that can lead to possible in-person meetings, and possible friendships or relationships. Also, many people are now turning to online dating services that will help people find others that might possible make a good match for them. Furthermore, there are websites, such as Monster.com, where a person can post their resume and then from that get contacted for possible job offers. This is not a one on one original contact but it can lead to it and for some possibly a new job. For these reasons for someone to say that these technological forms of communication are not nearly as personal and real as one on one meetings or conversations might be somewhat true, but the fact remains that much good can come out of these developments that can help people meet others that may have significant impact on their life. Overall, these advancements in communication are impacting our lives significantly and are here to stay.

I think that Heidegger would really promote an Amish type lifestyle. After learning a little about how their society works, it seems like the very issue that Heidegger was talking about in “The Question Concerning Technology”. Heidegger is concerned with our way of being in the world. Dryfus too thinks that technology conceals humanity. The Amish do use technology, of course, in ways like using language and in ways like driving cars. The way their society works is based on what certain elders and the community agree would be beneficial to all of the people. For example, phones were viewed as important and necessary for such things as business calls, but to keep the telephone from being used too often and unnecessarily, the phone was put outside away from the house. The Amish agree that the phone would lead to less face-to-face conversations. Because of this concern also, the phone was put in a place to be shared with other families, making it more of a responsibilitiy and social interaction will still have to occur. The Amish of course have their relgious reasons for not wanting to mix with people that are not Amish, but they also feel that they need to strive to live that simple life without letting technology “introduce individualist competition for worldly goods that would be destructive of community”(wikipedia: Amish). I really do believe that the concern Hediegger had with the way humans will lose control of technology the more advanced it gets is a concern that the Amish have taken notice to a long time ago. They assess every new technology they want to introduce into their lives, and in doing so understands that piece of technology far better than most humans, which most people only strive for that transparency in technology like Gehlen points out. After discussing how that piece of technology would benefit or disrupt their lives, the Amish then decide how they want to take advantange or not take advantage of it. I just think that if the world were to adopt Heidegger’s ideas, our lives could be more like the Amish. I personally think that if the world was like that, it would slow down the development of technology tremendously.

In our discussion on the Bleecker article in class today, I heard the phrase “first-class-a-list producers of conversation” several times.  The first thing I thought was, who is this guy coining all these weird terms: Blogjects, a-list conversationalists.  Then I thought about this term in relation to humans.  It’s safe to say humans enjoy talking with certain people more than others; most time this preference has everything to do with opinions, tastes, intelligence, etc.  The idea that all blogjects are “first-class-a-list producers” implies blogjects have an ability some humans don’t: to hold nay humans’ interest.

Talking about spime made me realize the extent of the potential extension technology can ultimately have on our level of intelligence; spimey things have the ability to affect things that matter to us.  In the Dreyfus and Clark debate, Dreyfus claims that technology interrupts the immediate connection humans have with the world and makes humans become out of control.  Clark responded with the idea of waiting for technology to get better and see that it will become an extension of our bodies.  Clark claims that we do not want technology to replace what our bodies do, rather just to increase our capacities and abilities.  However, this idea of blogjects that are capable of stimulating relevant conversations makes me sense technology is headed to become more than extension of our bodies. 

In class, we always talk about what technology does not have in comparison to humans: relevance.  However blogjects are capable of providing any level of information or type of interest.  Blogjects know where they are, where they are in relation to other things on the internet, they know where they come from, and they are active participants.  Who is to say with the information a blogject can obtain that a human wouldn’t rather converse with a blogject on a topic of interest rather than a human who cannot keep up in the conversation?  From what I know about blogjects thus far, I disagree with both Dreyfus and Clark.  I do not think technology will cause humans to become out of control and cause us to loose connection with other humans, however I also don’t believe that technology will remain only an extension of ourselves. 

In this class, we have taken a sort of funnel shaped approach to the subject of philosophy.  First we started with a broad scope talking about basic philosophy and its origins, and as the class has progressed, we have narrowed our scope more and more until we settled on the subject of machine intelligence and other technology related problems.  Being aware of the end of this class drawing near, I feel that I have found a philosopher that I connect with best on the issue of machine intelligence, and even though many people are proud to say that they’re no longer behaviorists, I have found reason in the ideals of Alan Turing, who notably bases much of his philosophy on behaviorism.

One of the foremost reasons why I have connected with Turing is the test he devised to determine machine intelligence, also known as the Turing test.  In this test, a hidden human and machine are communicating to an interrogator via text.  The machine will pass and be considered intelligent if it can act indistinguishably from the human.  This behavioristic approach to testing intelligence offers the perfect rebuttal to the claim that machines don’t have the capacity to care about the tasks they complete.  If a machine can appear to care and behave indistinguishably from a human, what is the point in analyzing so critically the process by which the machine comes to behave so similarly to a human?  Take the Deep Blue chess playing machine as an example.  It was a machine programmed to make the best move based on the table sitting before it.  Now, to a chess master, this could be like a Turing test of sorts.  It was said in the past that a computer would never beat a human in chess, but if a chess master was to see only a record of the moves, or some sort of visualization of them, he could take the place of the interrogator.  If the computer were primitive, or unintelligent, the chess master could probably tell immediately which player was human and which was machine.  Deep Blue, however, made very intelligent moves, and even ended up forcing Kasparov to quit due to the machine’s apparent intelligence.  Kasparov even accused the programmers of cheating because of a move where the computer sacrificed a piece to gain better position in the game.  To me, this was along the lines of passing a Turing test, because if you think about it, the basics of the text communication and chess playing are similar.  There is a definite mastery to both language and chess playing, and saying the right phrases at the right times is very similar to making the right move in the right situation.  I also realize that this is a fairly basic function, and that the machine was built only for the purpose of playing chess, but I feel that the sacrificial move showed that Deep Blue was intelligent, and even if that may be considered only a small step in the direction of more human-like machines, it is a step nonetheless, and if this kind of stride has been made in this field, who knows what will happen in the future.

In conclusion, the main point that I come away agreeing with Turing on is that if a machine behaves like it understands, why does it matter whether or not the machine truly understands?  I believe that behavior truly is the best way to evaluate the intelligence of anything

Today’s lecture was about network neutrality and what people like Edward Whitacre think concerning the creation of direct telecommunication lines from people to the service. I’m not going to harp on the details of the lecture because I do not want to repeat what Erin’s earlier post talked about. But I would like to openly question the integrity of the intentions of those who oppose network neutrality. One can’t help but wonder the true intentions of telecommunications companies when it comes to this discussion. It just seems like the problem has less to do with ignorance of the internet, and more to do with selfishness.

Whitacre said, “Cable companies have them (broadband pipes). We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have a return on it.”

I understand that he is eager for compensation on usage of pipes that are his. What I don’t understand is that if there is and can continue to be a way to freely remain network neutral, why not? According to Whitacre, he continues to question, “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”

This situation similarly reminds me of the current online gambling situation in the United States. Some online poker sites like PartyPoker have been cut off from offering real money games to U.S. players. The argument that comes up is that these sites are based in non-U.S. islands. If these sites were based in the U.S., then the government could regulate it and tax it by taking a share of the fees. It seems as though we are contradicting ourselves. If online gambling is wrong and shouldn’t be performed, especially by underage players, then why would it continue to be okay to play on other sites? Furthermore, state governments have a large gambling business through the playing of state lottery.

Regardless, people will find a way to do what they want to do. There are many more sites on the internet, available for people to play poker or gamble using the internet. Similarly, people will find a way to download music without paying for it.  

It seems like, out of human nature, people try and take any advantage they can get at any given time. We, as humans, are competitive. But to what extent are we ready to limit technological advances and gathering of information?

When I first read through some of Clark’s book, Natural-Born Cyborgs, I was very skeptical. I basically felt that because I didn’t agree with Turing a couple weeks back, I would feel the same way about Clark and his ideas about humans, and that we all are actually cyborgs. However, the past couple of days as I review Clark’s book for the final, I’m starting to understand that although Turing and Clark do both have theories relating humans and human intelligence to technology, they make very different points. Turing is obviously a proponent of artificial intelligence. Before and after reading his article, I came to the same conclusion that I don’t believe that machines can or have the capacity to think. Although Turing does provide the Turing Test which is a good support of his view, I still can’t fathom the idea that a computer or robot can think in the way that a human being can. Knowing my thoughts on artificial intelligence, I went into Clark’s book disagreeing with a lot of what he says. However, as we learned in class, Clark’s main point isn’t about technology, it’s about what we as humans are. Throughout Clark’s book, he provides many different reasons that humans are natural-born cyborgs, as he puts it. Clark says, “The cyborg is a potent cultural icon of the late twentieth century. It conjures images of human-machine hybrids and the physical merging of flesh and elctronic circuitry.” Instead of saying, bottom line, that machines are intelligent and can think, Clark is saying that we are cyborgs because technology compliments us and allows us to perform tasks that our biology does not allow. One example of this that Clark used was cell phones. Most people have cell phones, and most people have their phone with them at all times. Clark says that we’re so used to having a phone at our fingertips - it’s almost like an extension of our hand. So, technology is an integral part of human life but doesn’t necessarily contain intelligence of its own.

After the Clark vs. Dreyfus debate on the Thursday before break, I didn’t really think like we reached a conclusion.  Obvious points were made.  Clark people, the side that I was on, made the obvious points of using technology to bridge communication gaps.  Dreyfus people countered saying that telepresence would never compare to real, personal connections.  The telehug example was the main argument.  I definitely agree with Dreyfus in saying that telepresence is not the perfect way to form and maintain relationships.  It is harder to read people without seeing body movements and hearing voice changes.  That does not, however, mean that the whole idea of using technology to communicate is bad.  After reading Dreyfus, I got the feeling that his true feelings were that all forms of telepresence were bad.  I think, as long as you understand that personal contact is ideal, long distance communication is better than no communication at all.  A wife talking to her husband while on a business trip brings her piece of mind.  A child sending emails or using AIM to talk his father while he is out of town couldn’t be a bad thing.  And about the telehug, of course it isn’t the same as a real hug, but I find it hard to believe that a small child talking to a video phone and getting a fake hug from a machine sent from a parent or friend would not get a great deal of excitement out of that.

My above examples have to do with maintaining already formed relationships.  In terms of forming new relationships, I do tend to agree more with Dreyfus.  I don’t really think that spending all your time online talking to people you have never seen in person could be healthy in the long term.  The research Dreyfus presented on this really doesn’t shock me at all.  My final point of the debate should be that telepresence (in maintaining, not forming) is not just ok, but great if meeting in person is not available.

Technology is so important in our lives these days that we don’t always think about how immersed we are.  When I was talking to my friends about what I was doing in my philosophy class, we started talking about technology.  It was very hard to get them to understand that writing with a pen and paper is technology. All they were trying to justify that it wasn’t was that technology is silicon chips and electronic pulses.  But I told them that the pen and the paper are external objects beyond our body and so they are technology.  I told them about Aristotle hated writing and how that writing things down would be the downfall to our mental memories.  Well, I believe that is true. No, I don’t know how much better my memory would be if I hadn’t learned to write at an early age, but I know that with external objects such as a post it not, I can “know” a lot more.  I use the word “know” in quotes because I do not remember it on my own accord, so I do not know the fact, but I can know where to look for where it is.  This is the same as pictures and not remembering exactly what a landscape looks like, but knowing how to find a picture that can capture it externally from our minds.  I do not believe writing is such a horrible thing though.  Because we have the ability to write down thing that do not have to be known at all times, we can have more space to know how to find how to know those things.  That might sound counter productive, but if you don’t have to know everything about Queen Elizabeth at all times, then you have more space to know where to find all of that information in a book.  Then you are not using so much ‘space’ in your mind to know so many facts, but just a way to find those facts.  Technology is created to increase our mind and abilities to find information. 

            Just like with the phone or the internet.  AOL instant messenger was created to help people who can’t talk face to face or on the phone.  They can still have conversations online, learn from each other, and interact while being miles away.  It wasn’t created to hinder physical contact, which is does for some lazy people, but to make life easier, help you talk to more people then you could have, and for information to move faster.  It does make things less personal the further away from face-to-face you get, but at least that opportunity to talk is there.  Also, having a written object makes it easier to tell the next person the same thing without changing the words.  That is why books are better then folktales because they are accurate and easily translated to someone else in the correct manner.

In Heidegger’s article he describes two types of technology, ready-at-hand and present-at-hand.  Ready-at-hand technology, as we know, is technology that the features of it become invisible to the user.  When you type on a computer, you don’t know how the computer is sending signals or how the words are showing up on the screen, but you just use the computer.  I know how a car opperates, but when I am driving the car I’m not thinking:  The fuel is being injected into the cylinders and the pistons are moving up and down, creating the power that drives the car.  All I am doing is driving the car.  Now, if the car breaks down, it becomes present-at-hand and the features of the car and how it works are in the forefront.  Now, the purpose is to use my knowlege of the car to fix it and move it back to ready-at-hand and use it again.  This is a suitable way do describe technology because when a person uses something, they do not think of the features of the object, they just use it.  Then, when there is a problem with the object, the features become apperent.

Heidegger goes on to describe three ways in which humans interact with technology; manipulation, transparancy, and Dasein transparancy.  Transparancy describes how when a person uses a certain technology, it looses it’s features and well, the features become tranparant for the time of the person using the technology.  It seems strange because earlier, Heidegger describes the types of technologies and ready-at-hand technology is the same thing as his one use, trancparancy.  To me, they are the same, but if they were, Heidegger would not have described it two seperate times.  I must not know what the difference is, if there is one.  The same can be said for his use first use of technology, manipulation.  When a person manipulates technology, the technology’s features are visible and the technology is present-at-hand.  If these two statements we true, where does Dasein transparancy fit into this puzzle?  If ready-at-hand technology and transparancy are the same thing and present-at-hand and manipulation are the same thing, what is Dasein transparancy?  Maybe this is just a miscommunication in the classification of these things, but could Heidegger is repeating himself.

I thought that today’s lecture was very interesting. The idea of network neutrality and internet regulation really made me think a lot about the idea of regulation in general. To summarize briefly, the idea of network neutrality is potentially being threatened by telecommunication companies such as SBC. People like Edward Whitacre of SBC are upset that services such as Google and Skype are using “his” internet to provide their services. Whitacre, along with others in the telecommunication industry feel that by allowing VOIP services like Skype to use their internet pipes, they are aided their direct competition. To counter this, the telecommunication companies want to make certain direct, preferred pathways from the person to these services. For example, for me to get to Google, I would use a particular pathway through the internet to get to that site. The site, in this case Google, would have to pay even more money for this pathway, along with paying their regular fee for access to the internet. As a result of this however, network neutrality would cease to exist because all the power would go to the telecommunication people. These companies would have the power to block people from certain pathways, meaning that they would block them from certain sites.

I use Skype myself to call people who live far away because it is much cheaper than using my regular phone service. I can see how these telecommunication people are losing money in this way, and I understand why they would want to start regulating this to make up for the lost profits. That said, I in no way condone this sort of regulation. I strongly believe that the internet should be free because it is a vital part of our access to knowledge and democracy. I am afraid that this sort of regulation will happen at some point in the future. Today’s lecture made me think about government regulations and even their monitoring of the internet. While the U.S. Government can block certain thing through law, such as child pornography, there are other things that they can monitor, or so I’ve heard. Now, I’m not an expert on this, so please correct me if I am wrong or mislead, but I’ve heard that through acts such as the Patriot Act, the government can monitor people’s searches on search engines such as Google. This is not quite the same type of regulation, but it is still regulation on some level. Do you think that this acceptance of regulation will lead to further regulation? I know that I do. Sadly, I can believe that in the future regulation of all kind will occur, be it through government regulation or telecommunication regulation.

 When we had our debate in class, I was all for taking Dreyfus’s side of the argument. However, after our review for the final paper, I am starting to be swayed by Clark. The main argument that is starting to sway me was when we discussed about how Clark says that goal of technology is not to replace real life experiences, but it opens up new possibilities to extend and strengthen these experiences. I’ve believed that technology could never replace human interaction and relationship, and this is why I have sided with Dreyfus. But now I am starting to understand Clark a bit more. If a relationship is founded initially and for the most part on personal and real life interactions, then I believe that technology can in fact be used to extend and strengthen experiences in life.The two best examples I can think of this would be long-distance relationships and further learning. Obviously, relationships need to be founded on trust and care. These are two attributes I am certain can not be established over the Internet, phone, or other technological means alone. However, if after this relationship is founded upon these principles, and people must be separated, I do believe you can extend yourself to some extend through these technological means to continue and even sometimes strengthen the relationship. However, I couldn’t ever trust a relationship founded on technological interactions alone. People now are able to establish virtual selves and interact with others in everyday, online life. But who’s to say these are accurate representations? Or if the relationships are meaningful. Similar to this, sites like neopets.com offer people an opportunity to raise on online pet. But is it the same as owning a real pet?

The other example is of course using technology for education, which we’ve discussed much in class. Here again, I agree with what was said in final review: technology could never truly replace true life experience, though it can be used as a means to extend and strengthen what we already receive through personal interaction. For instance, how much has the library’s online resources and online class reserves helped anyone in researching or studying for classes. However, the best teachers in society have always established themselves as the best not simply through their knowledge of the subject, but mainly through how well they can interact with and pass knowledge down to students. This can’t be done simply through technological means, technology can only strengthen what can be done in person. Any other examples or ideas people have to share?

I was really interested in the discussion about network neutrality in class today. I was completely surprised by all the complications of it and perhaps even more surprised by how serious an issue it was. I do have to say I am for network neutrality. I do not want to have to pay extra to excess certain websites simply because the ISPs feel they are losing out on their money if they allow free access to websites like Google or Youtube. I agree with the idea brought up that to restrict the access through things like specific pipelines and other means would be a slap in the face of the democracy that this country was brought up on. As for the ISPs arguments of anti-business or competition, I believe those are ridiculous. Sure they are missing out on their money, but the fact that the money is spread out throughout these different companies, does it not mean there can be more competition? If ISPs were allowed to control web content, would it not be nearly the same as establishing a monopoly? When have monopolies ever worked out in the business world? I feel that to compromise the free nature of the internet, would do much more harm than good and could not be justified by the ISPs arguments. It is clear that they simply want more money out of all this because they see how lucrative a business the internet can be.

Another thing to think about, it was also brought up that these long standing telecommunications companies have built really strong relationships with the government that could potentially pass new legislature on this. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this just reminds me of the idea of conspiracies. Our government is an extremely powerful government, not only very influential, but also very technologically advanced. It could be conceivable that the government could alter the ways of our lives, like for example the internet. Sure we talked about how big the internet is, and that it would be hard to control like the ISPs would want to control them. I do believe that if the government really agreed with the telecommunications companies that the network needs to be controlled, that they could do it. So with the telecommunications companies having the advantage of a long standing relationship with the government, it would be scary to imagine what could happen if the government puts the best interest of the huge companies first.

Use this thread to discuss any of the issues raised in class today: Net Neutrality, Wikipedia, Blogjects and the ‘Network of Things’, and Squarepusher’s idea of machine collaboration.

A few links. Don’t take my word on the Net Neutrality debate, it is worth doing research on your own. Here’s some of the links I put on the handout today:

Wikipedia:

   Nature: Internet encyclopedias go head to head
Cnet News: “Is Wikipedia safe from libel?” 12/7/2005    
Wikipedia class action lawsuit
Entity-hood (my commentary)

Google and Internet Neutrality
Google Blog: “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality” 11/8/2005
Networking Pipeline: “Google: We wont pay broadband cyberextortion” 1/18/2006
Neutral Thoughts (my commentary)
Anti-net neutrality ad (paid for by the telecommunications companies)

Tiered Internet
Information Week: “Verizon Says Google, Microsoft Should Pay For Internet Apps” 1/5/2006
Ars Technica: “Monitoring traffic to nickel and dime you” 10/24/2005
Ars Technica: “FTC states in principle that ISPs should not block access to lawful Internet content” 12/28/2005
Quality Optional (my commentary)