After reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, a number of thoughts and realizations began to take shape. It was interesting, especially for the case with this Comm 360 class on digital ethics, because the Declaration does not focus on technology or the digital world. This forced me to draw some parallels between the document and how it might apply to the digital realm. This is a pretty important step to take, not just for me, but for everyone in general. There is no real document or declaration that states the rights and safeties guaranteed to us online. It's almost mind boggling to think abut really. This UN declaration, from way back in the mid 1900s certainly still applies to this day, but that doesn't mean our daily lives have stayed the same for the past 60+ years. Things have changed a lot since then. Back when the Declaration was written, our physical lives were our entire lives, and this document tended to the rights guaranteed to us in these physical, entire lives; Everyone is created equal, we can't be tortured, no discrimination, right to privacy, etc.
When you begin to realize how much more our lives are being intertwined with the digital world, it's important to make sure the rights guaranteed to us in the real world can also apply there as well. I feel that, of course, everyone should have certain rights online and these rights should be the same for everyone, without regard to economic status or anything else for that matter. I personally believe the right to privacy is the main concern. You should be able to decide who gets to see what you put out online, and more importantly, who does NOT get to see what you put out there. We have a right to privacy guaranteed to us, yet this right somehow does not extend to our digital lives. Right in the document it says that we shall not be subjected to arbitrary breaches of privacy. This brings up the whole NSA issue. They may claim that they were listening and tapping anyone in the country for terrorist threats as their reason to break this privacy, but how can it be deemed OK to say that about ANY one in the country. There is no legitimate reason to just listen in on people at random. That makes the reason arbitrary and therefore breaking the right given to us.
In my field of study and hopefully my career field, set of rights would be greatly helpful. As a Film and Digital Media major, it would be nice to be able to create things I have an interest in, while at the same time, not doing anyone else harm. Also, just being in a field that is digitally dominated, it would just be helpful to have a set of rules, rights, and responsibilities.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Our Digital Lives
http://www.archivefilter.net/tenurefile/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bInvisibleDynamics.pdf
The above article, written by Meghan Dougherty, was an interesting article in the way it made me reflect. It was one of those kinds of feelings where someone mentions something that seems overly obvious but at the same time makes you think about that obvious idea more so than you ever had. It's obvious that our lives are more and more intertwined with the digital world. But the more you think about it, the crazier it seems. The craziness is amplified when you think of how fast this dependence has evolved. Not that long ago, the internet, cell phones, computers, etc. were all almost non-existent in our every day lives. However, today, we take technology for granted. we use it for so many things. I use my phone to wake up. Then once I am awake, I use it to catch myself up with the latest news, sports, and happenings among my friends. This keeping up with friends, used to not be a daily thing at all. You would catch up with people when you saw them, if you saw them. Now, we seem to know what everyone is up to and what they did anytime, any day. We use Fitbits to help us and track us with our exercise and other daily doings. We integrate our schedules onto our phones, our laptops, now even our watches, so we can get reminders and not forget. Our homework in schools is almost always turned in electronically. We apply for schools online; paper applications are virtually a thing of the past. Even our happiness can be linked to our technology and digital lives; seeing stories or pictures online can influence our mood. Getting texts from certain people can brighten our day without us actually having to see those people in person. We can essentially live our entire day our week, even month without interacting with people face to face. Now, it's not an ideal or necessarily healthy way to live but it is seemingly more and more possible. This causes me a little concern, even though the potential is astounding and often technology is extremely helpful and convenient. It makes me nervous, thinking about the impact and gravity of a situation where something happens that might cause this technology to fail us. What if all of a sudden we lose control of it, or it just fails us and we lose everything it holds? What then?
The above article, written by Meghan Dougherty, was an interesting article in the way it made me reflect. It was one of those kinds of feelings where someone mentions something that seems overly obvious but at the same time makes you think about that obvious idea more so than you ever had. It's obvious that our lives are more and more intertwined with the digital world. But the more you think about it, the crazier it seems. The craziness is amplified when you think of how fast this dependence has evolved. Not that long ago, the internet, cell phones, computers, etc. were all almost non-existent in our every day lives. However, today, we take technology for granted. we use it for so many things. I use my phone to wake up. Then once I am awake, I use it to catch myself up with the latest news, sports, and happenings among my friends. This keeping up with friends, used to not be a daily thing at all. You would catch up with people when you saw them, if you saw them. Now, we seem to know what everyone is up to and what they did anytime, any day. We use Fitbits to help us and track us with our exercise and other daily doings. We integrate our schedules onto our phones, our laptops, now even our watches, so we can get reminders and not forget. Our homework in schools is almost always turned in electronically. We apply for schools online; paper applications are virtually a thing of the past. Even our happiness can be linked to our technology and digital lives; seeing stories or pictures online can influence our mood. Getting texts from certain people can brighten our day without us actually having to see those people in person. We can essentially live our entire day our week, even month without interacting with people face to face. Now, it's not an ideal or necessarily healthy way to live but it is seemingly more and more possible. This causes me a little concern, even though the potential is astounding and often technology is extremely helpful and convenient. It makes me nervous, thinking about the impact and gravity of a situation where something happens that might cause this technology to fail us. What if all of a sudden we lose control of it, or it just fails us and we lose everything it holds? What then?
Monday, April 4, 2016
The Digital Divide
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6196/5187
The above article, written by Emily Hong, details a rather interesting situation that is taking place in San Francisco's Chinatown, although the situation is certainly not restricted to just that neighborhood. The issue of internet access is never one I have ever really considered, at least not for more than a moment or two. This may well be because I have had internet access for as long as it's been normal to have it. Shoot, I remember as a little kid, when I wanted to tell my grandma something, anything at all, I would just tell my mom and we'd get online and send an email. That easy. No hassle. It was just any other day. For this reason I had never really considered what it might be like to live in an area that did not have very good, or sometimes any, internet access at all. What multiplied the shock of this article was that Chinatown is a result of racial dividing from decades ago that is still being perpetuated over and over again. It's crazy that these people are living in conditions that prevent them from accessing a free, public service. The internet has become increasingly important in our everyday lives and for people to not have any way to access it is wrong in my opinion. What makes it worse is that this is not even really the fault of the people. The government gave them this little section of San Francisco decades ago and it is now far below living standards and near tenement conditions, with no way to have internet in place. Looking at research done by Pew Internet through 2015, they found that 97% of Asian Americans use the internet (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/). That is astronomically higher than those residing in Chinatown. Why is this the case? Why does location determine your right to a public good. And, going off of that point, if locataion gets to determine your right to said public good, how come the government can place you in these areas and not even help out when living conditions become outdated. There just needs to be more done to make sure everyone can have access to the internet, especially with more and more of our daily lives being integrated with the digital world.
The above article, written by Emily Hong, details a rather interesting situation that is taking place in San Francisco's Chinatown, although the situation is certainly not restricted to just that neighborhood. The issue of internet access is never one I have ever really considered, at least not for more than a moment or two. This may well be because I have had internet access for as long as it's been normal to have it. Shoot, I remember as a little kid, when I wanted to tell my grandma something, anything at all, I would just tell my mom and we'd get online and send an email. That easy. No hassle. It was just any other day. For this reason I had never really considered what it might be like to live in an area that did not have very good, or sometimes any, internet access at all. What multiplied the shock of this article was that Chinatown is a result of racial dividing from decades ago that is still being perpetuated over and over again. It's crazy that these people are living in conditions that prevent them from accessing a free, public service. The internet has become increasingly important in our everyday lives and for people to not have any way to access it is wrong in my opinion. What makes it worse is that this is not even really the fault of the people. The government gave them this little section of San Francisco decades ago and it is now far below living standards and near tenement conditions, with no way to have internet in place. Looking at research done by Pew Internet through 2015, they found that 97% of Asian Americans use the internet (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/). That is astronomically higher than those residing in Chinatown. Why is this the case? Why does location determine your right to a public good. And, going off of that point, if locataion gets to determine your right to said public good, how come the government can place you in these areas and not even help out when living conditions become outdated. There just needs to be more done to make sure everyone can have access to the internet, especially with more and more of our daily lives being integrated with the digital world.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Hackers for Hire?
http://digitalethics.org/essays/good-reasons-hire-hacker/
The above article by Owen King was a very welcome read in my opinion. I have often wondered many of the same things that he mentioned in the article over the years. It's fascinating really, to think about the kind of times we are living right now; that there are actually outlets... DIGITAL outlets, like the websites brought up in the article, where people can go and hire hackers to help them with their DIGITAL problems or concerns. In a sense, these hackers-for-hire are like cyber plumbers and handymen. At least, that is if they are used constructively, as mentioned by King. Certainly, it's an almost scary thought hiring someone to bypass system securities or whatever it is they may do to assist you with your computer or digital system. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. hacking can be very beneficial for some people, despite the gut reaction some people may get when hearing the word "hacker" and immediately jumping to the conclusion that thy will steal loads of data and information and spread it to the world to see, much like the cases with Target and Sony.
One main point I thought of while reading the article was brought up in a related article on CNBC's website. In the same way that some prisons have used prisoners who escaped in order to find weaknesses and better secure the prison, some companies have begun hiring hackers to better secure the company's network. Hackers are also being used in counter-terrorist efforts in order to try and find out about attacks before they happen, among countless other reasons. "The domain that you protect, cyberspace, is presenting us with some of the most profound challenges," he said. "While you may not be at risk in the way that the forces are — physical risk in the way our — in Afghanistan, we are requiring from you a comparable level of professionalism, excellence, dedication. And I know you show all that, but we count on it, because you really are on the front lines" (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/companies-are-starting-to-hire-many-more-hackers.html).
In these ways, the hackers are extremely helpful because they tend to know much more about computers and cyberspace than the owners of the companies. In my opinion, the best defense against a hacker is another hacker. It's important that companies, as well as the government begin taking steps forward with cyber security measures. In today's day and age, threats against people are more and more possible and harmful online. Without proper protection, the destructive hackers out there will continue their attacks uninhibited. The digital age came about and has evolved at an almost unbelievably fast rate, but digital security has not kept up at the same pace. It's vital to make sure constructive hackers can thrive and can help us in the fight against destructive hackers.
The above article by Owen King was a very welcome read in my opinion. I have often wondered many of the same things that he mentioned in the article over the years. It's fascinating really, to think about the kind of times we are living right now; that there are actually outlets... DIGITAL outlets, like the websites brought up in the article, where people can go and hire hackers to help them with their DIGITAL problems or concerns. In a sense, these hackers-for-hire are like cyber plumbers and handymen. At least, that is if they are used constructively, as mentioned by King. Certainly, it's an almost scary thought hiring someone to bypass system securities or whatever it is they may do to assist you with your computer or digital system. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. hacking can be very beneficial for some people, despite the gut reaction some people may get when hearing the word "hacker" and immediately jumping to the conclusion that thy will steal loads of data and information and spread it to the world to see, much like the cases with Target and Sony.
One main point I thought of while reading the article was brought up in a related article on CNBC's website. In the same way that some prisons have used prisoners who escaped in order to find weaknesses and better secure the prison, some companies have begun hiring hackers to better secure the company's network. Hackers are also being used in counter-terrorist efforts in order to try and find out about attacks before they happen, among countless other reasons. "The domain that you protect, cyberspace, is presenting us with some of the most profound challenges," he said. "While you may not be at risk in the way that the forces are — physical risk in the way our — in Afghanistan, we are requiring from you a comparable level of professionalism, excellence, dedication. And I know you show all that, but we count on it, because you really are on the front lines" (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/companies-are-starting-to-hire-many-more-hackers.html).
In these ways, the hackers are extremely helpful because they tend to know much more about computers and cyberspace than the owners of the companies. In my opinion, the best defense against a hacker is another hacker. It's important that companies, as well as the government begin taking steps forward with cyber security measures. In today's day and age, threats against people are more and more possible and harmful online. Without proper protection, the destructive hackers out there will continue their attacks uninhibited. The digital age came about and has evolved at an almost unbelievably fast rate, but digital security has not kept up at the same pace. It's vital to make sure constructive hackers can thrive and can help us in the fight against destructive hackers.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Memorial Page Trolling
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3168/3115
After reading the above article by Whitney Phillips, the only way I can really describe my reaction is merely "not surprised."The article described the wonderfully cynical new trolling fad where people make crude comments and memes stemming from a tragic incident, like the Chelsea King rape and murder. People see these circumstances as a glorious opening to test out their wit in the hopes of getting likes or fame or whatever the hell is gained from using some one's nightmare for their own personal gain. Despite how grotesque and shameful these trolls' actions are, I say I'm not surprised because unfortunately I have come to expect people on the internet, and even in person, to act like this. People only ever seem to care about themselves and their own interests. I have, maybe unfortunately, developed a cynical view that there are no selfless acts. Everything people do is, at heart, in their own self interest. This complex is multiplied in these trolls who seem to think that degrading an innocent life that was taken away is somehow acceptable. Whitney Phillips is the well known author behind "This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things." This book details many more instances of trolling taken to another level. This includes similar incidents as the one described in the Chelsea King case. There was a case of a boy who killed himself over something video game related and after the initial attempt to make memorial pages for him online, they were quickly outnumbered by pages dedicated to making memes out of it. Trolls had a field day with the fact that someone would kill themselves over something like a video game. They didn't care about the fact that a kid had lost his life due to a possible case of depression. They only cared about getting noticed and making a joke out of a terrible situation. The problem with these memorial trolls is that they take attention from real issues at hand, such as depression, suicide, and, in the case of Chelsea King, rape. Instead they pull the focus towards themselves and distract from a meaningful life that had been taken away. In my opinion it is shameful and needless. I understand comedy is needed in our lives but attacking victims and making a joke out of their lives is pretty tasteless in terms of how these trolls handle it. Memorial page trolling has no place online. But once again, I cannot say that I am surprised.
After reading the above article by Whitney Phillips, the only way I can really describe my reaction is merely "not surprised."The article described the wonderfully cynical new trolling fad where people make crude comments and memes stemming from a tragic incident, like the Chelsea King rape and murder. People see these circumstances as a glorious opening to test out their wit in the hopes of getting likes or fame or whatever the hell is gained from using some one's nightmare for their own personal gain. Despite how grotesque and shameful these trolls' actions are, I say I'm not surprised because unfortunately I have come to expect people on the internet, and even in person, to act like this. People only ever seem to care about themselves and their own interests. I have, maybe unfortunately, developed a cynical view that there are no selfless acts. Everything people do is, at heart, in their own self interest. This complex is multiplied in these trolls who seem to think that degrading an innocent life that was taken away is somehow acceptable. Whitney Phillips is the well known author behind "This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things." This book details many more instances of trolling taken to another level. This includes similar incidents as the one described in the Chelsea King case. There was a case of a boy who killed himself over something video game related and after the initial attempt to make memorial pages for him online, they were quickly outnumbered by pages dedicated to making memes out of it. Trolls had a field day with the fact that someone would kill themselves over something like a video game. They didn't care about the fact that a kid had lost his life due to a possible case of depression. They only cared about getting noticed and making a joke out of a terrible situation. The problem with these memorial trolls is that they take attention from real issues at hand, such as depression, suicide, and, in the case of Chelsea King, rape. Instead they pull the focus towards themselves and distract from a meaningful life that had been taken away. In my opinion it is shameful and needless. I understand comedy is needed in our lives but attacking victims and making a joke out of their lives is pretty tasteless in terms of how these trolls handle it. Memorial page trolling has no place online. But once again, I cannot say that I am surprised.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
A Rape in Cyberspace?
http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-rape-in-cyberspace/
What is cyber rape? This is the question that first presented itself to me after reading the above article, describing the LamdaMOO incident with the infamous Mr. Bungle years ago. It was a very interesting and thought provoking piece to read. It was one that certainly caused a lot of back-and-forth for me as well as outright disgust that people like exist. The main issue came down to whether or not Mr. Bungle's actions should be classified as legitimate rape.
To try and answer the question I guess it would be necessary to determine what "cyber rape" actually is. after looking at various websites, the most common answer I could find is the very blunt "a rape that takes place on the internet." What it boils down to is any time sexual advances are made towards someone online who does not wish for those advances to be made. This was certainly the case on LambdaMOO in the late 90's where this case takes place. By Mr. Bungle subjecting these other players to demeaning sexual behavior on the internet without them having any control, he was very clearly cyber raping them. A similar case took place in Douglas County, Georgia last year when a man was on trial for cyber rape of his ex girlfriend. He had released multiple intimate pictures of his ex girlfriend online in an attempt to humiliate her. The judge ruled it as an act of cyber rape and granted a warrant for his arrest (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/judge-issues-warrant-man-accused-cyber-rape/27306268).
My struggle comes when deciding whether or not cyber rape is equal to real life rape. I certainly think they are on two different levels. Of course cyber rape is harmful and scarring and there is no place for it on the internet. However, real life rape is a much different animal. It is both a mentally AND physically painful experience. I don't personally think the two compare very closely. Again, cyber rape is utterly disturbing and feral in its own way and should certainly not be taken lightly. I just happen to think physical rape is a much different, more vile form.
What added to the despicable nature of the case was that Mr. Bungle was actually owned by multiple people. It's just horrifying to think that a group of people would work together on such a disturbing act against various people. It's important to know that just because they did it from behind a computer screen, they are not less innocent than someone who commits a crime in person. There is no place for physical rape in real life and there should be no tolerating of rape in the cyber realm either.
What is cyber rape? This is the question that first presented itself to me after reading the above article, describing the LamdaMOO incident with the infamous Mr. Bungle years ago. It was a very interesting and thought provoking piece to read. It was one that certainly caused a lot of back-and-forth for me as well as outright disgust that people like exist. The main issue came down to whether or not Mr. Bungle's actions should be classified as legitimate rape.
To try and answer the question I guess it would be necessary to determine what "cyber rape" actually is. after looking at various websites, the most common answer I could find is the very blunt "a rape that takes place on the internet." What it boils down to is any time sexual advances are made towards someone online who does not wish for those advances to be made. This was certainly the case on LambdaMOO in the late 90's where this case takes place. By Mr. Bungle subjecting these other players to demeaning sexual behavior on the internet without them having any control, he was very clearly cyber raping them. A similar case took place in Douglas County, Georgia last year when a man was on trial for cyber rape of his ex girlfriend. He had released multiple intimate pictures of his ex girlfriend online in an attempt to humiliate her. The judge ruled it as an act of cyber rape and granted a warrant for his arrest (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/judge-issues-warrant-man-accused-cyber-rape/27306268).
My struggle comes when deciding whether or not cyber rape is equal to real life rape. I certainly think they are on two different levels. Of course cyber rape is harmful and scarring and there is no place for it on the internet. However, real life rape is a much different animal. It is both a mentally AND physically painful experience. I don't personally think the two compare very closely. Again, cyber rape is utterly disturbing and feral in its own way and should certainly not be taken lightly. I just happen to think physical rape is a much different, more vile form.
What added to the despicable nature of the case was that Mr. Bungle was actually owned by multiple people. It's just horrifying to think that a group of people would work together on such a disturbing act against various people. It's important to know that just because they did it from behind a computer screen, they are not less innocent than someone who commits a crime in person. There is no place for physical rape in real life and there should be no tolerating of rape in the cyber realm either.
Monday, February 29, 2016
The Doomsday Invention
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom
After reading the above article titled, The Doomsday Invention, by Raffi Khatchadourian, I had some reactions to many of the points and observations by the writer, as well as Bostrom. The first two sections were the most striking to me and had a lot to consider upon reading through both of them.
I found the first part very interesting because I have always wondered some eerily similar questions. I have always held a certain fascination with this universe that we inhabit. Really thinking about how many planets are really out there, I too have come to the opinion that there is certainly life out there somewhere. There has to be. So it was incredibly provoking to think of why we have yet to encounter life from other planets. Odds are there is definitely multiple populations and forms of life that began ages before humans evolved, which would mean they should be much more advanced technologically than us humans, so why have they not made themselves evident to us. An answer to this speculation was brought up by Bostrom and was somewhat worrisome. Maybe these civilizations had gone through the same sort of technology evolution that humans have, and are, going through, but when they reached a certain level of advancement it might have caused the entire civilization's demise. If that is true, then at what point do humans make the leap to that level and ultimately cause our own demise? Also, if that is true, then one hope we may have is just the astronomically improbable chance that Earth is in fact the only planet with life. But lets not get too comfy with that hope.
The second part of the article gave me the feel of The Terminator movies. That movie itself, back years ago when I first watched it gave me the same questions that were presented. I agree with Bostrom that advancing technologies too much could certainly be catastrophic. Humans dominate and control this planet simply because we are the most capable beings that inhabit it currently. If we create something that is more capable than ourselves, then there is no reason to think we are entirely safe from a takeover. A lot of this fear depends on the development and advancement of A.I. If the machine is able to think as a human does and can actually take in experiences and teach itself and better itself, it could surpass any limitations humans may have put on it. Another worry to creating superintelligent machines is that thy would replace the need for humans. If these machines were passing our levels of intelligence there would be no need for us in anything. The machines would essentially regard us as inferior being such as we regard animals. It's a crazy sci-fi looking idea but what is even scarier is how it actually is not far from reality. I think it is important for humans to look further ahead at the implications we may be creating instead of just focusing on how it might help in the short term. Like Bostrom said, breakthroughs are often unpredictable, so what if we accidentally come across the next breakthrough that ultimately leads to our extinction?
After reading the above article titled, The Doomsday Invention, by Raffi Khatchadourian, I had some reactions to many of the points and observations by the writer, as well as Bostrom. The first two sections were the most striking to me and had a lot to consider upon reading through both of them.
I found the first part very interesting because I have always wondered some eerily similar questions. I have always held a certain fascination with this universe that we inhabit. Really thinking about how many planets are really out there, I too have come to the opinion that there is certainly life out there somewhere. There has to be. So it was incredibly provoking to think of why we have yet to encounter life from other planets. Odds are there is definitely multiple populations and forms of life that began ages before humans evolved, which would mean they should be much more advanced technologically than us humans, so why have they not made themselves evident to us. An answer to this speculation was brought up by Bostrom and was somewhat worrisome. Maybe these civilizations had gone through the same sort of technology evolution that humans have, and are, going through, but when they reached a certain level of advancement it might have caused the entire civilization's demise. If that is true, then at what point do humans make the leap to that level and ultimately cause our own demise? Also, if that is true, then one hope we may have is just the astronomically improbable chance that Earth is in fact the only planet with life. But lets not get too comfy with that hope.
The second part of the article gave me the feel of The Terminator movies. That movie itself, back years ago when I first watched it gave me the same questions that were presented. I agree with Bostrom that advancing technologies too much could certainly be catastrophic. Humans dominate and control this planet simply because we are the most capable beings that inhabit it currently. If we create something that is more capable than ourselves, then there is no reason to think we are entirely safe from a takeover. A lot of this fear depends on the development and advancement of A.I. If the machine is able to think as a human does and can actually take in experiences and teach itself and better itself, it could surpass any limitations humans may have put on it. Another worry to creating superintelligent machines is that thy would replace the need for humans. If these machines were passing our levels of intelligence there would be no need for us in anything. The machines would essentially regard us as inferior being such as we regard animals. It's a crazy sci-fi looking idea but what is even scarier is how it actually is not far from reality. I think it is important for humans to look further ahead at the implications we may be creating instead of just focusing on how it might help in the short term. Like Bostrom said, breakthroughs are often unpredictable, so what if we accidentally come across the next breakthrough that ultimately leads to our extinction?
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Privacy and Trust
Reading the article, "The Intersection of Trust and Privacy in the Sharing Economy," by Joseph W. Jerome and Benedicte Dambrine, a couple chords were struck with me. It was very interesting to look at for one, because it brought to light some issues that we talk about a lot, but never really try and solve. For instance, most of us know total privacy is almost nonexistent, especially online, yet we never really question why that is or if it is absolutely necessary anyway.
The main point that the article really seemed to hit on, at least as I read it, was the focus on trust. I found that particularly intriguing because it made so much sense but it was a concept I had never really considered. I strongly agreed with their point that these Sharing Economy platforms operate based on consumer trust in them. I thought it was especially true when they mentioned that the greater the transparency of the company, the more trust consumers had in that company.
Consumers are not just going to hand over personal information to just anyone. They have to trust that their information is used in a proper, ethical way, in the same way that the company has to trust in the consumer that they are in fact who they say they are.
The main thing I want to talk about is the part of the article where they mention how the two different companies, Uber and Airbnb, took different approaches to try build on this idea of trust and safety.
I personally thought Airbnb's method of verifying users was preferable. I thought it was a good way to know where exactly you would be sleeping or if you were hosting, you would know who you were allowing into your home. I actually felt it was a good idea. However, I hadn't considered some of the downsides, such as not having enough Facebook friends. It did seem a little much to require something like that.
Now in the case of Uber, their idea made a lot of sense to me, even though it seemed to bother a lot of other people. Being able to rate both drivers and customers is a great idea I think. If a customer is consistently late or does not show up or is disrespectful, then I think other drivers have the right to know and, in turn, refuse service to these people. Now there is certainly gray area, because some people may be quicker to hand out poor grades for particularly minor offenses. And, for instance, what counts as tardy for one driver or customer, may not count as tardy to someone else. So I may not agree with how some people use the rating system, but I do support the idea in theory.
There just needs to be some middle ground that can easily verify who people are without having them give up sensitive information. The information provided also needs to be handled ethically. If these do not happen, then trust cannot be built between platform and consumer, and then, the Sharing Economy would collapse.
The main point that the article really seemed to hit on, at least as I read it, was the focus on trust. I found that particularly intriguing because it made so much sense but it was a concept I had never really considered. I strongly agreed with their point that these Sharing Economy platforms operate based on consumer trust in them. I thought it was especially true when they mentioned that the greater the transparency of the company, the more trust consumers had in that company.
Consumers are not just going to hand over personal information to just anyone. They have to trust that their information is used in a proper, ethical way, in the same way that the company has to trust in the consumer that they are in fact who they say they are.
The main thing I want to talk about is the part of the article where they mention how the two different companies, Uber and Airbnb, took different approaches to try build on this idea of trust and safety.
I personally thought Airbnb's method of verifying users was preferable. I thought it was a good way to know where exactly you would be sleeping or if you were hosting, you would know who you were allowing into your home. I actually felt it was a good idea. However, I hadn't considered some of the downsides, such as not having enough Facebook friends. It did seem a little much to require something like that.
Now in the case of Uber, their idea made a lot of sense to me, even though it seemed to bother a lot of other people. Being able to rate both drivers and customers is a great idea I think. If a customer is consistently late or does not show up or is disrespectful, then I think other drivers have the right to know and, in turn, refuse service to these people. Now there is certainly gray area, because some people may be quicker to hand out poor grades for particularly minor offenses. And, for instance, what counts as tardy for one driver or customer, may not count as tardy to someone else. So I may not agree with how some people use the rating system, but I do support the idea in theory.
There just needs to be some middle ground that can easily verify who people are without having them give up sensitive information. The information provided also needs to be handled ethically. If these do not happen, then trust cannot be built between platform and consumer, and then, the Sharing Economy would collapse.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Music Streaming
http://digitalethics.org/essays/ethical-way-stream-music/
After reading the article by Holly Richmond, I had a number of reactions. I, first and foremost, was very interested in the subject matter. The debate over streaming and downloading music for free has been a hot topic in the music world for a number of years now. I agree with her point that Napster has ultimately changed the music industry in a drastic way. However, I do not think it is as negative a change. I definitely see the negative aspects of it, but also sided with a number of the people she mentioned in the article that saw positive side effects.
Let's start with the downside to streaming and downloading music for free. The reasons are fairly obvious and have been the main points artists and the industry use when trying to fight against this streaming and downloading. By getting digital versions of artists' music for free, you are not sending any funds to the artists themselves. This is an issue because their music is their product, and to be able to have their product, they should be compensated. They also need to have a living somehow, and without any royalties or income from their work, they cannot exactly accomplish that. Another problem I considered is that by not paying for an artist's music, the artist might lose incentive to create anything else. If they are not making any money, then why should they keep trying? Now there are some artists out there who actually support free downloading and streaming. These include singers like Dave Grohl and Neil Young. In an online article, both artists relate streaming music online to listening to a song on the radio (https://www.upvenue.com/article/1590-musician-stances-on-music-piracy.html). Bigger names and bands are, however, able to make a living much easier because they can rely on merchandise and concert revenues and don't have to worry as much about song and album purchases, which often reward the artist with maybe a dime per every dollar spent.
Now the positive side of the argument for streaming and downloading music puts the spotlight on indie, underground, and lesser known groups. I think, as pointed out in the Richmond article, that free streaming and sharing definitely helps these groups out. The first step towards bigger and better things for a band is to first be heard and be noticed. What better way to do this than just getting your music out there to as many people as possible? Not many people will pay for music from someone they have never heard of. So in this way, free streaming would certainly help these groups out.
The bottom line for me, is that when it comes down to it, I think artists should be compensated for their work in some way or another. If we must use a streaming service such as Spotify, we should use the one that rewards the artists the most, such as Xbox Music. I do think, though, that file sharing is a great way to get the word out and actually promote a group. There's just a really fine line between trying to help an artist out, or actually hurting the artist in the process.
After reading the article by Holly Richmond, I had a number of reactions. I, first and foremost, was very interested in the subject matter. The debate over streaming and downloading music for free has been a hot topic in the music world for a number of years now. I agree with her point that Napster has ultimately changed the music industry in a drastic way. However, I do not think it is as negative a change. I definitely see the negative aspects of it, but also sided with a number of the people she mentioned in the article that saw positive side effects.
Let's start with the downside to streaming and downloading music for free. The reasons are fairly obvious and have been the main points artists and the industry use when trying to fight against this streaming and downloading. By getting digital versions of artists' music for free, you are not sending any funds to the artists themselves. This is an issue because their music is their product, and to be able to have their product, they should be compensated. They also need to have a living somehow, and without any royalties or income from their work, they cannot exactly accomplish that. Another problem I considered is that by not paying for an artist's music, the artist might lose incentive to create anything else. If they are not making any money, then why should they keep trying? Now there are some artists out there who actually support free downloading and streaming. These include singers like Dave Grohl and Neil Young. In an online article, both artists relate streaming music online to listening to a song on the radio (https://www.upvenue.com/article/1590-musician-stances-on-music-piracy.html). Bigger names and bands are, however, able to make a living much easier because they can rely on merchandise and concert revenues and don't have to worry as much about song and album purchases, which often reward the artist with maybe a dime per every dollar spent.
Now the positive side of the argument for streaming and downloading music puts the spotlight on indie, underground, and lesser known groups. I think, as pointed out in the Richmond article, that free streaming and sharing definitely helps these groups out. The first step towards bigger and better things for a band is to first be heard and be noticed. What better way to do this than just getting your music out there to as many people as possible? Not many people will pay for music from someone they have never heard of. So in this way, free streaming would certainly help these groups out.
The bottom line for me, is that when it comes down to it, I think artists should be compensated for their work in some way or another. If we must use a streaming service such as Spotify, we should use the one that rewards the artists the most, such as Xbox Music. I do think, though, that file sharing is a great way to get the word out and actually promote a group. There's just a really fine line between trying to help an artist out, or actually hurting the artist in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)