Extra Credit Post for Monday 5/23

This article really clarifies how the accustomed separation of voice and data would be impacted by the widespread implementation of VoIP. I think the main message is that hte large, dominant companies would be forced to perhaps downsize as they ultimately combine the two areas of voice and data. This has the potential to give smaller companies a better chance out on the market because the monopoly that some communications companies hold may be weakened, due to either failure to adapt the new technology, inefficiency at adopting the new technology, or underestimating the new technology if it happens to take off and become more popular and widely used than expected.

Post for Monday 5/23

I think that VoIP has the potential to impact cable and telephone networks in a very big way. As this technology becomes more well known and better developed it could either pose a threat or serve to increase their business. Cable and Telephone networks could very well be forced to adopt new or alter current systems to be a part of the VoIP market. Although it is very new to me, every piece of technology was once new and many have become staples in our everyday lives to the point where we can’t imagine how life was before their advent. Who knows? Perhaps VoIP will become that way too.

Extra Credit Post for Wednesday 5/18

Once again the relationship between cyberspace as public space and accessibility standards is all about availability. It sounds like both candidates do not have the most tech savvy staff working on their sites, and the result is many mistakes or ill planning that hinders availability to site visitors. What I took away from this article is much the same as what I learned from the first two, it is not truly a "public space" unless everyone can get to it, it has to meet the accessibility standards necessary for all users.

Post for Wednesday 5/18

After reading the ADA and evolt.org articles, I think that the relationship between cyberspace as public space and accessibility standards is that a site does not qualify as a “public space” until it meets the accessibility standards. If a website is for any reason not accessible to everyone, then it cannot be designated as a public space because it is not available to all. This is especially apparent in the evolt.org article “Accessibility: The Politics of Design.” If there are any websites that should measure up to the accessibility standards, including under the ADA standards, it should be the sites with content that is specifically there to inform and serve the people- such as state and local government sites. “The People” refers to all citizens, and if it is for any reason not accessible/understandable to everyone then I don’t think it qualifies as a “public space.”

Post for Monday 5/16

The impact of internet technology on political activity is undeniable. The internet enables anyone with a connection to access an enormous amount of information about just about any aspect of a campaign, candidate, issue, voting process, or commentary. Up to the minute, nearly live, postings as practiced by supporters of Grassroots Journalism have proven to be powerful factors in the coverage of elections. The consequences of this information have the potential to be either positive or negative, because credible informative resources can help people make more educated decisions and choices, or encourage them to become more active and find their voice. However on the opposite spectrum it may provide faulty information, or only serve to further enrage or alienate certain people.

Extra Credit Post for Monday 5/9

This article showed me an entirely different viewpoint on the concept of “public space.” I must confess that I am a bit of a commercial junkie, I have a ridiculous appreciation for a clever ad, but even I have my limits. I do believe there is a line that many advertisers have crossed, when enough is enough. When entire towns are painted with a single company’s ads (as in the Coca-Cola example for the Olympics) or simply cluttered with many different advertisements, it reaches a point where it is overkill and just plain littering. I definitely agree with the four states that have enacted billboard bans, and I think they have the right idea since they are known for their scenic beauty. However I don’t think that all ads should be banned, perhaps limited, but not banned.

Revised Citations

Gillmor, D. (2005). About Me. Retrieved May 4, 2005 from http://dangillmor.typepad.com/about.html

Pew Internet and American Life Project (2002, September 5). One Year Later: September 11 and the Internet. Retrieved May 4, 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_9-11_Report.pdf

Madden, M. (2003, December 22). America’s Online Pursuits. Retrieved May 4, 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Pursuits.Final.PDF

Bender, W., Chesnais, P., Elo, S., Shaw, A., Shaw, M. (1996). Enriching Communities: harbingers of news in the future. IBM Systems Journal, v 35, pp. 369-380.
Retrieved May 4, 2005 from http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/mit/sectionb/chesnais.pdf

Stepp, Carl S. (2004). When Everyones A Journalist: A Seismic Shift Thanks to the Internet [Review of We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People]. American Journalism Review, v. 26, i6, p62 (1). Retrieved May 4, 2005 from Research Library database. (Document ID: 764978491).
http://proquest.umi.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/pqdweb?index=29&did=7 64978491&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD&TS=1115258853&clientId=8991&aid=1

Post for Monday 5/9

I think the concept of cyber space as public space was originally based on very valid and beneficial intentions. This is best summed up in the “Hacktivist” article, in which Oxblood Ruffian points out that the internet was originally created for the purpose of “fast, cheap, and unfettered communication.” However many concepts and creations begin with the best of intentions and can easily be manipulated into something else, as in the surfacing of pornography, viruses, and other harmful content. The idea of censorship was likely meant to keep from hurting or offending people, but this idea has also undergone transformation. As in Iran, India and China, the government is censoring content it feels could be detrimental to its dominance and rule. Therefore, by censoring its citizens protests (i.e. communication), it is restricting expression in a public place. I believe it is wrong to take away the people’s right to express themselves, and the internet that would provide the public forum for that kind of expression is being repressed. I think the concept of cyber space as public space is a good one, and that governments should not be allowed to filter political sites or personal bloggers.