Blog Post 8

Shapiro and Varian make some valid and still relevant points when it comes to information technology and it's relationship with the producer and consumer of information.  They talk about how hardware and software are completely useful without each other.  The two also reference the relationship between advertisers and consumers in the cyber world.  I find it to be a good thing that advertisers are able to connect with their customers better than ever through information about their own navigation.  Up until now, I've seen it as a breach of privacy however since it is now widely known that almost nothing is private on the internet, why should your browsing history?  We have discussed in that past that the younger generation is becoming more concerned with social privacy than institutional privacy.  I think this trend will continue and that will allow advertisers to collect more and more information on users.  I would much rather see an ad for a dress I might like than one for tire rims and data mining can make that happen.
It is quite obvious however that this article is outdated.  At one point the authors write, "The fact is the Web isn't all that impressive as an information resource".  I personally do not agree with this.  The fundamental aspect of the internet as an information resource is the search engine.  The search engine has evolved from the classic AskJeeves to Google [insert noun].  Google as a search engine has pushed farther in terms of information accessibility than any other.  Bing by Microsoft is trying to catch more ground with its constant campaigns against Google however Bing still does not have the social backing that Google has.    The amount of scholarly information on the web has increased vastly since educational institutions started using the internet as part of its curriculum. Search engines in 2005 may have been frustrating but today, they are used more than any other type of Web site.

Blog Post 7

It doesn't surprise me that Kate Raynes-Goldie found that 20-somethings are more concerned with social privacy than institutional privacy on Facebook and other social media sites.  As young adults, we are constantly under scrutiny by our peers in regards to our relationship status, the pictures we post, the events we attend and those we are connected with.  As more and more adults enter the world of Facebook, it is no longer just our peers that are watching our every digital move.  Teachers, administration, parents, parents of friends; anyone who is free to judge our young lives can now access the documentation we willingly and conveniently provide online.  As users of Facebook, we rarely see how our institutional privacy is being tested because most of the information that is used, shows up as ads that we merely glance over and brush off.

One way to combat the fear of giving our "friends" too much information is the switch to Twitter. Twitter provides an outlet where the user can still express their immediate thoughts without the option of your "friends" sharing more than you would like about yourself.  Twitter can still tag people in posts and although not directly, pictures.  The interface of Twitter also allows for rapid movement of posts and does not naturally show a single person's timeline of posts unless a user clicks on their individual profile.  Twitter gives the user a lot more control on what information is connected to them however this sometimes gives a false sense of security.

Large corporations are now using Twitter to issue press releases, updates and company events.  Young Twitter users are less cautious when it comes to what they post on Twitter compared to what they post of Facebook.  More can be said in 140 characters than most users realize however privacy settings are a lot more user friendly with Twitter.  A Twitter account can be entirely blocked to the public and even if that account is tagged in tweet by some one else, it is still private to those who are not connected to the account.  As Raynes-Goldie points out, Facebook can give a stranger a lot more access to your information, pictures and posts than you would probably like.

The early years of social media, it was normal and encouraged to reveal as much information as possible about yourself in order for your friends to find you easier in the cyber world.  As time progressed, stalking, child molestation and general stranger danger took effect.  Personal information is gaining more value every day that identity theft occurs.  Users of Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and more are selective of the information they post.  Sires are now losing users because they no longer want other people to access their information or conversely, they no longer want access to the information of others.  Social media is going downhill as more and more adults start using; it is losing its “cool” and soon it will no longer exist as a normal part of American social life.

Blog post 6

David Parry's talk on copyright had some strong suggestions about how we as consumers can change in order to promote the free sharing of intellectual property. In the video, he talks about copyright infringement, the concept of intellectual property and the business of "owning" information.  He refers to this conflict as "open scholarship," whether we should freely and openly share information and academic research. At the same time, we will be eliminating the profitable side of information which prevents some readers from having access to the information.  His ten steps to ending "Knowledge Cartels" gives a few valid reasons on why we should give up the monetary aspect of information and simply share everything.  His steps include giving every new piece of work a creative commons license, refuse to work for the gated publishers and simply pirate everything.  He does make a reference to the criticism he receives, most critics may label him as an information anarchist.  I can understand why they would lump him in with the rest of the chaos that ensues when society decides to simply share everything.  Parry's theory could definitely work but it would take a lot of lobbying to convince every creator to give up the money-making rights to their works.  Could we collectively eliminate the concept of intellectual property? Suddenly sharing what was once a form of wealth would be difficult for Western society.  Information has been a traded commodity for hundreds of years, when the thoughts of one person seemed to hold enough value to change the state of his pockets.  As it grew, the economy of information became more and more valuable.  Science, innovation, and the exploration of ourselves as humans helped boost the emergence of copyright law.  As society grew, specialization allowed for more information to be produced and distributed, while providing income for a range of professionals in the intellectual property business itself. I find it hard to believe that we can successfully and mutually share information in way that everyone can gain from it, while those who previously profited from it are left with the same rights as everyone else but without a livelihood.  Although I agree with some of the reasons for suggesting these changes, the changes themselves seem far from our reach as a culture and do not seem reasonable.