Defeating Homophily

In the transcript of the interview between Brooke Gladstone and Ethan Zuckerman, Zuckerman points out the before unseen consequences where a culture has access to 'diverse views, surprising voices, and news we need', yet is trending towards the proverb of 'birds of a feather flock together' and only following the news that fits within their own frame of mind. Zuckerman points out that this overload of information created from the digital media has the potential impact of making our society stupid, as "we have the ability to pick and choose whatever it is that we want to look at, [and] we've gone from a supply problem to a demand problem."Additionally, he poses the question of "how do we build an Internet that doesn't just show us what we want to see but also does a pretty good job of showing us what we need to see?" This question would lend itself to the solution that editorial overview is necessary in making sure that citizens of society are exposed to 'all of the news fit to print' to quote The New York Times in order to delay or impending stupidity.  However, this solution immediately leads to the new question of how we could force our citizens to analyze news that has been put forth by a large collection of biased (but ethical and reliable) journalists. Or, we could have the House of Representatives and Senate appoint a chief news editor who would create a daily print/online media source to be distributed in all public areas containing the top ten stories daily that are not being focused on by major media in order to create differentiated interest within the public. Granted, homophily would be created by the public all reading the same publication; hopefully, this publication would only serve as a stepping stone for the public to discover some of the other media on the Internet.

Response to Alali Dagogo

In response Alali Dagogo, he states that United States will continue to demote Free Speech every time a threat presents itself. Actually, free speech is vital for a democratic system of government. It also reflects a social commitment to the value of individual freedom and personal autonomy. Furthermore, it is flurrying that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first things to go. He also states that the purpose of agitation is just a method for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrender our First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT. Yes, it is true that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to motivate imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment protects even speech that calls for overrule of the government or lawless action. The government, may, nevertheless enforce reasonable limitations upon the time, place and manner in which speech is practiced in order to preserve public order and the smooth functioning of public organization.

Response to Sims' "Virtual World"

In response to Sims’ post I have to agree with Alali in the fact that the majority of people who spend countless hours creating a new version of themselves would not say that what they are doing is a video game. I think a good deal of these people have problems interacting with people in a face to face setting so they use the avatar and the internet as sort of a barrier to safely do things that they would never do in real life. Referring to Alali’s response again, I think Dateline is a perfect example of this. There have been psychologists on the show who have talked about how certain people, when they talk, blog, or post things online, they suddenly feel this power that they don’t have in real life and will say anything because they don’t fear the repercussions of their actions because of the shield of cyberspace.

Cheating in Virtual Worlds

It seemed like when we discussed the topic of virtual world relations and if they could in fact be considered cheating that the class was pretty evenly divided on both sides of the issue. However, I think that if someone is in a sexual relationship in a virtual world that it is the same as having one in the real world. Sure only the avatars are actually engaging in the elements of a real relationship, even if it is in cyber space, but the people behind them are the ones controlling the avatars. It seems from what we discussed in class that the avatars are meant to be an extension of oneself. The avatars are put in this virtual space that is almost free of limitations so that the person controlling the avatar can live out dreams not thought possible by them in reality. So if a person is engaging in a relationship with someone else in cyberspace they must have some desire to do so in the real world, they just happen to do it virtually. However, the desires are still there and the actions are still carried out by the physical person so I believe it to be cheating. How is engaging in a conversation, sexual or nonsexual, online any different than calling someone on the telephone. I think that a good deal of people would think that a married person having repeated phone sex with someone other than their partner would be considered cheating, and I don’t think that this situation is any different.

Response to Sims Frazier's Virtual World

In his analysis of our class discussion on virtual cheating, Sims expresses the viewpoint that creating an avatar that engages in adulterous behaviors does not necessarily translate to committing adultery in real life. I would love to agree with Sims but from personal experience I’ve found that the type of people who invest large amounts of time in creating virtual avatars and leading second lives are not normal people, to say the least. A disproportionately large number of these people are borderline sociopaths who need to the Internet to socialize. As a result, they create these new and improved versions of themselves online to attract companions. So while your significant other may swear up and down that that virtual kiss with McDreamy8787 meant nothing, chances are he/she is lying. There are thousands of people who “seem normal” who are not normal and use the Internet as a tool to practice their abnormal behaviors. If you don’t believe me, you might want to tune in to “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC’s Dateline.

Freedom of Speech (Provided There Are No Threats)

Anthony Lewis, author of Freedom for the Thought We Hate, makes a judgment that the United States will continue to marginalize free speech every time a threat presents itself. The past examples he uses to support his hypothesis are the Sedition Act of 1786, the Red Scare, and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II. However, he finds the War on Terrorism different from the threats of the past. Since we have no concrete enemy to surrender, they may very well be no decisive end to this war, and therefore there may be no decisive end to the limits put on our First Amendment rights as a result. Like Lewis, I find it disconcerting that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first thing to go. We are a country of fear mongers. I believe the terror alerts at the airport illustrate this point. All this hullaballoo about red, orange, and yellow alerts is just a way for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrendered out First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT Act. The government and citizens refuse to learn from the past, though, as Lewis points out, we do a really good job of apologizing for our trespasses after the fact. Though there is protest, the majority of citizens view allowing the government to reduce their Constitutional protection as their civic duty during these unstable times. However, I believe that now more than ever, we need to fight to preserve our Constitutional rights. After all, how can we claim to be fighting terrorism to promote liberty abroad when we are reducing liberty at home?

Re: Amy's free speech blog

In response to Amy’s piece on freedom of speech, I agree with her points and believe they were thought out very well. As Amy indirectly suggests, people in countries with the right of free speech do not quite give that right the appreciation it deserves. For instance, in some foreign countries people cannot even google certain words because the government literally makes those topics disappear and not even appear when typed into google. This is unfair to those people being subjected to this censorship. People should have the right to learn about anything they want. I understand the motives behind blocking some websites but think that it is corrupt in nature. I just cannot imagine a life where I was told what I could learn about and also limiting the information I was allowed to know. In all, it seems that these limitations do nothing but hinder the capabilities of individuals in society. For our society to grow and become stronger, we must be allowed to learn.