Today in class, you wrote about the value a specific object has in your life.
How is this object connected (or not) to what you wrote in your "A Day in the life of my Internet Usage" assignment?
How are these two ideas related to your (short!) reading for homework, United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right and the Youtube video Humanity Lobotomy - Second Draft?
Consider the following discussion taking place on TED, "Has the Internet and User-Generated Media killed the critic..." (What sorts of opinions and ideas do you see developing in the discussion between users? Does anyone have an opinion or perspective that you agree with or disagree with?)
How are we beginning to connect what we use, to how we're being used, to how we can use Web 2.0?
In class, I wrote about two inanimate objects of mine, that I care about deeply; Charlie and Amwana. Although the assignment was supposed to be about only one object, I felt it wrong to speak about either Charlie or Amwana without mentioning the other. Charlie is my non-breathing monkey and Amwana happens to be a thin pillowcase. I’ve considered myself the “mother” of both since I was three years old. Neither of these objects have anything to do with the Internet, nonetheless my use of the Internet on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI did, however, read the passage “United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right” and watched the YouTube video, “Humanity Lobotomy – Second Draft?” I had known about the United Nations declaring Internet access as a basic human right when it had first occurred. My feelings towards the declaration are a bit jumbled, for lack of a better word. Although I completely understand the reasoning behind the U.N. declaring Internet access a basic human right, I’m not quite sure that even the U.N. knows exactly what that means…and if they do, then I don’t believe that they’re sharing the whole picture with the world, either. Exactly what about Internet access is a basic human right? Does this simply mean that access to the Internet should be free for all people? If so, the Internet is, in nearly all cases, not free. Internet access is something that must be paid for, and also comes with tons of government controls. I don’t see how it can be declared a basic human right as long as there are price-tags, corporations, and regulations involved. I don’t think that Internet access should be considered a basic human right until there is absolutely no government regulation on it. For example, certain countries that have adapted the concept of Internet access being a human right are countries that ban “hate sites”, sites that are usually created by groups similar to the Ku Klux Klan or, extremely bizarre and immoral, sites that breed pedophile meeting grounds. As harsh as it may seem, I don’t believe it is right to ban any site, whatever messages/information the website creators are spewing. Until the government agrees to lift a ban on certain sites, then I don’t believe the Internet access can really be considered a basic human right, because then it doesn’t apply for all humans and citizens; solely for those who agree to follow the rules and regulations that the government has imposed.
This then brings me to the video, “Human Lobotomy – Second Draft?” I enjoyed watching the video, and I agree that corporations buying out the Internet seriously jepordizes the future of the Internet. Yet, once again, I disagree that major companies, such as AT&T should be banned from capitalizing the Internet. While it will eliminate user-generated content, the bottom line is that this country was built on the concept of capitalism, and not allowing different companies to begin taking over different aspects of the Internet goes against the very concept of capitalism.
Lastly, after reading “Has the Internet and User-Generated Media Killed the Critic…”, I must say I once again disagree with the author of the short passage. I do, however, agree with one of the people who happened to respond to the post. Ted Barnes writes, “The question at its base is flawed. It hasn't killed the critic, it's made millions of them.” There is nothing truer! Due to the fact that user-generated media exists and that millions and millions of people are able to comment, “like” and “dislike” much of this content has only created more critics, that would have never existed before. Nearly anyone can go on any website and voice their opinion or view on nearly any topic or issue. The Internet has not destroyed critics whatsoever!
The item that I picked, which was my phone is in a lot of ways connected my daily Internet usage. I use the Internet daily for social networking, homework, and media. All of these things come from my phone because I’m not home all the time. The Internet on my phone is very convenient and saves a lot of time.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article about United Nations declaring Internet access a basic human right i was very surprised. I thought to myself how people lived for thousands of years without it. There are many people today who don’t use Internet or any kind of web for anything. I don’t think the Internet can be a basic human right if you have to pay for it. After watching the YouTube video about humanity lobotomy I think of how the Internet would be if it was privately owned. There wouldn’t be any sites that users contribute to. If there are no sites that humans contribute to the Internet wouldn’t be the same, there would not be as much demand for it. If there isn't any demand for the Internet the companies who own them wouldn’t be making any profit from it, so ultimately i don't think it will ever happen.
I think the Internet did not kill a lot of critics, but made them used for better. If your video gets a lot of critics it just gains popularity, which is ultimately what you wanted. For every critic there is someone who agrees with it. People can put whatever they want online and not get judged. If there is no one like you in your city there is one in the world and the Internet helps you find them, so you feel more comfortable with the way you are. The Internet makes everyone an author and people feel more special when they can express their feelings to millions over the Internet.
We are beginning to connect what we use, which is the Internet, to how we’re being used, which is the Internet changing the way we think and our minds without us noticing, to how we can use web 2.0, which is for using the Internet for basically anything we could imagine.
What I chose as my inanimate object of value was Role-Playing Games or better known as RPG. And it is very much connected to the other assignment in which I do mention that part of my internet usage is playing an Massive Multiplayer Online game which can vary depending on which online game it is. It can be fast paced action MMO like Vindictus or a Massive multiplayer online role-playing game like Mabinogi.
ReplyDeleteIt is related to the passage “United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right” in a quotated piece from the report where it says that internet is a way for human to express themselves and I consider Role Playing games as a way to express myself. Many people have their own way of expression through the internet and for me playing a MMORPG is one of them. But besides expressing oneself people also share opinions and what better place to do but on the interenet where to most, is easily accessible. That's why I have to disagree with Elissa Gomez because even though we have to pay to use the interent, as the passage states, several dictators and leaders in some places in Africa and the Middle East are cutting of their internet because it's too much of a powerful thing. The government can't control the internet in a way. Controlling the internet, to me, is like controlling the sea. You can put a price for swimming in the sea or getting a boat on it or for crossing a certain section of the ocean. But no one, not even the governement can completely conquer it or control it. Someone would find a way to avoid paying a fine to swim in it, or conceal their boat so it won't get detected or create a way to their own sea and the governement won't even know. To me is all limitation, limiting us to use the internet but the article shows us how some people in Egypt found their own way to get acces to the internet.
With the youtube video "Humanity Lobotomy - Second Draft" in a way it can relate to my two ideas in which if the internet were to be controlled and just mostly one directional then I wouldn't be allowed to do many of the things I do online, such as express myself though the internet and show my view as I'd like. But like I said, the internet can't be controlled. We'll find a way.
I agree with one person who says that it hasn't killed critics but created millions of them. With how the internet works now and everyone and their mother being capable to post their opinion on something, everyone is now able of critic no matter what the object is.
In class I did write about one object in which has a huge significant in my life, my car. Although the internet barely plays a role in how my most valued object it does help me out on occasion. Google maps, and other GPS applications I have on my phone help me get every where, because I am terrible with directions. If it wasn't for the basic concept of GPS, every trip I take would last way longer. So even though it only plays the most minor of parts, it is relevant. That is what I love most about the internet, no matter where you are or what your doing the internet is almost always applicable in tons of situations, such as driving your car.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the "Untied Nations Declares The Internet A Basic Human Right", I have mixed emotions. Immediately I felt, yes absolutely the internet should be a basic human right, but then oppositional ideas started to settle in. In reality internet should be a basic human right, but this will never be. As Elissa said, government will always intervene and get involved in certain situations regarding user-generated content. Although this may strike you as a problem, we need rules and regulations for usage of the internet. Otherwise it will be a breeding ground for many criminals, offenders, and even terrorists. The internet makes it so easy to learn how to do destructive things and to conspire with others when it comes to doing this things. So by declaring it a basic human right, it should be understood that every person should have access to it, but there will still be guidelines and rules. The way I understand this, is by comparing it to driving a car. Driving is a basic human right, but even though it is a privilege to all, there are still rules and there are still consequences to not following those rules.
Going along with the idea about the internet being a basic human right, a controversy has developed and the video "Human Lobotomy-Second Draft?" was made. In this video it discusses the fact that certain companies are trying to buy out the internet, and whether or not that is okay. Personally I feel, it should not be another pawn of capitalism. Everything that these companies are fighting for are only to bring more money to their pockets. The internet has been and still is based off of user-generated content. It is the only thing that is not based on how a huge corporation would like to do things. It is finally something that give people every where the chance to share their ideas, thoughts, comments, concerns, and problems quicker and more efficiently. By stripping everyone of this, it will kill the future of the internet and the great things it has in store.
Finally, the last discussion about user-generated media killing critics. I love this idea, I know so many people who refused to watch a movie or play a game due to the bad reviews of a critic. I think this is ridiculous every person has different ideals then that of a critic who thinks they know better then anyone else. I feel this will even help out some people who's songs or video or game flopped because of a couple bad reviews. I feel people should decide what's good and what's not for themselves. I feel critics are not gone, but critics who really influence people are. I encourage everyone to be a critic, because its starts conversation, it gets things going. Everyone has an opinion why miss out on the opportunity to be one because of a specific person or "critic" says it isn't worth your time. One last question, What qualifies a person as a critic?
In class, I wrote how my ipod is a valuable inanimate object. Without the internet, it would be vastly limited to only music that can be uploaded. We now live in an age we're not every piece of data we find value in lies on a compact disc. The internet is extremely important and retrieving rarities. I'm talking about music, but there are tons of other things an ipod can get from the internet, like books and podcasts. The article "Untied Nations Declares The Internet A Basic Human Right" really puts in perspective how valuable the internet is when governmental entities want to control it. It shows that it is an important tool in organizing people and organizing movements. When Egypt's internet was taken away, the uprising grew even more intense.
ReplyDeleteThe video goes even further to show that phone companies are attempting to buy out the internet. Some will agree that this is inherently wrong. Trying to buy out the internet, certainly when it is a deemed a basic human right, is criminal. Why does there have to be a price tag on anything tangible? The internet is a vital tool for freedom.
I decided to write about my blackberry. I kid you not I consider it one of my best-friends. Sometimes I like it more than people. Like I really cant be away from it for too long. My phone have a positive impact on me because it taught me to be organized. I get my important emails sent to me and I can update my task in my calendar as urgent or whatever it should be classified under. And on the other hand, its awesome for my entertainment Besides my car, I feel like its the best thing my mom bought for me. Twitter, Facebook, BBM ?! It cant get any better than that.
ReplyDeleteI read the passage “United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right” and I disagree with it. If we consume the internet, the government shouldn't intervene. Everyone uses the internet differently for their own personal reasons and nobody should tell them how to use it or when to use it. The internet is something valuable to everyone.
Which brings me to the video, I don't think they should let At&t control the internet. They only trying to bring more riches to their company. The internet is a user-generated content and no phone company should try to control aspecys of this content.