Power on the internet November 24, 2009

In the article Facebook dumbing friendships down? the author talks about people having online friends that are not really their friends, and the author sees this as a step backward, and compares it to the friendships of his three-year old daughter who is friends with everyone in her pre-school. I would argue that it is the other way around actually, that this “being friends with everyone” is part of adulthood. For example when you start a job you need to be able to have a relationship with all the people working there. This does not mean that they are all your closest friends, but you must be able to socialize. Pages like Facebook simply move this socializing to the web. It is a good way to build a network and to connect with people that you normally would not talk to.

The problem with friends on Facebook appears when there is a power difference in the relationship. For example it is probably not appropriate for physicians, psychologists or executives to be “friends” with their patients or subordinates. There is a risk that the patient or employee values these friendships a lot more than the boss or the physician, and therefore will feel judged or confused by the messages and feedback (or lack of feedback) that they get from this person that they admire. And really, why would you want your physician or psychologist to see your pictures from last night’s party?

The article Wisdom of crowds displays another problem regarding power on the internet and that is when a large group of people use their collective power to cheat a system. Collective intelligence can build a system, like Wikipedia, but it can also break it, like it did with IMDB. Fans of “The dark knight” voted down “The Godfather”, which changed the list of rankings of the top movies on IMDB and moved “The Godfather” from first to third place. The top 250 movies may seem like an irrelevant and unimportant page, but it is scary to think what will happen if this mob mentality gains power in other areas as well. In real life people will have to take responsibility for their actions, but on the internet there is another type of anonymity. We should not underestimate the power of the written word on the internet.

Thank you for reading my blog!
Take care!
//Sara

Copyright November 11, 2009

I believe that what is considered morally wrong has changed over the last decades. The words we use, the way we behave and the things we are willing to do on TV or the internet can make a person believe that many people of our generation are not ashamed of anything. I think that this change in overall morality has affected our morals when it comes to property as well. The fast development of the internet has left the laws far behind, and many young people live by the notion that whatever is on the internet is free. Why should you have to pay for something that you can get faster for free? I think it is more of an economical question than a moral one for these people, because I don’t think that they even see for example illegal downloading of music or films as a crime. The only thing that might prevent them from downloading is the risk of discovery, which is a question of public embarrassment, and punishment, which you could argue is also an economic question since the punishment that many people (myself included) fear is having to pay a large fine.

So how can we stop illegal downloading, and theft from copyright owners? Well, one way could be to lower the prices of CDs and DVDs and making them more accessible. Today when the risk of getting caught is weighed against the savings of downloading, both in time and money, people still decide to press download. If, instead, the prices were lower and the movies were released on DVD short after the premiere on cinemas, more people would probably buy the products, which would increase the total incomes for the filmmakers. I believe that every author, artist, photographer and filmmaker has a right to take credit for their work, but the price must be realistic to the customers as well, to make it less tempting to steal.

I do not believe in harsher punishments. If such a large group in society is willing to break a law, then maybe it is the law that needs to change and not the people breaking it. Some sort of compromise would probably be the best alternative. Programs such as Spotify and Voddler (by Bredbandsbolaget) are examples of programs that the user can benefit from legally, and hopefully they can help artists reach their goals as well.

Triumph of the Nerds November 1, 2009

What I have learned from watching Triumph of the Nerds is that during the years of the development of personal computers there were a few factors that were crucial in order to be successful;

First of all you had to be a nerd. You had to love programming and computers more than having a girlfriend or a social life. The most extraordinary inventions were created only because some nerd wanted to impress his friends.

The second factor was luck. In some crucial moments Bill Gates simply got lucky. Like, for instance, when IBM needed an operating system in 1980 and Digital Research, the company that previously made the operating system CP/M, couldn’t deliver one. Microsoft then came up with Q-DOS, which didn’t cost much for them but played a big part in making Bill Gates the richest man on earth.

The third factor was the importance of patents and taking credit for inventions. Like they said in the movie, it is not always the inventor who will benefit from his device, sometimes it is the one who can exploit the idea and take credit for it that will profit from it. Like, for example, the graphic user interphase (GUI), which was originally created by Apple. Bill Gates took credit for this at the release of Windows, even though it was not originally an invention made by Microsoft.

The movie is fascinating to watch, and I am amazed by the development of personal computers. It is a little sad though to think that a profession that used to be driven by passion now is so controlled by commercial interests.