If only we cared

I think that the government can use technology in a variety of ways to make the government more transparent and accessible. The first way I would like to see the government use technology is to make us more aware of the legislation that they will be voting on in the House and Senate.
The reason why people like me don’t get more involved in how our country is run is the lack of awareness. Yes the information is out there, but for people like me, who only know what their AOL homepage tells them, finding it poses a problem. I would like to see change.gov have a feed that lists the legislation that is up for discussion and if they could classify who it directly involves that would be icing on the cake
. I know that sometimes I read things that come from the government and the vagueness of the wording makes it difficult for me to fully understand what’s going on. It would be super fun if they got Kat Williams to give us all the legislation in layman’s terms. I’m just throwing that idea out there.
Another way the government could use technology to make the inner workings more transparent is that they could join second life. It might be really interesting for the younger generation to be able to see how the government works using another web application. I think that the most important thing is the use platforms with a significant number of users. Obama utilized this strategy when he was campaigning and put up billboards in video games. That was pretty brilliant on his part.
Another thing they could do to make the government more interactive would be to post opinion polls on their websites to see how people feel about certain issues. It would be amazing if the common person had a say in who gets what type of funding in the bailout package. The only drawback to that is, not everyone is educated enough to make an informed decision. However, to combat this problem they could include links to information that showed the different sides of the story.
I think that with a greater amount of government transparency it gives us the help we need to start monitoring what our government is doing with our resources. If we are to actually make a difference we need to take the new information we get and utilize it. A comment on the original blog by petes_pov said its not that we don’t have access, we just don’t care about what’s going on. I think that might change a little bit since we have seen where apathy and unchecked government gets us. We need to get more involved by writing to our congress people and other government officials, because in the end they are in their positions because we elected them to represent our interests.
I would propose solutions to help older Americans to utilize the internet to keep track of the government, but I think that would require research. I wonder what would get people like my mother who can only email (and still has trouble doing that) to use their computer as a resource to keep track and stay informed about the government.

You want to charge me for what?

When looking at the issue of net neutrality, I think it comes down to a simple struggle between the rich wanting to get richer and the poor not being able to afford what is better. In one of the assigned reading from the Wall Street Journal there is a quote from an executive who stated that we as consumers were crazy for wanting to use their services, which they made an investment in, for free. Thing is, as the number of users increases they make their investments back millions of times over.

The current debate is, whether or not these broadband internet companies should be able to provide “tiered” internet service where for more money your internet packets can be prioritized over another’s internet packets; regardless of if they sent their information first. Some special interest foundations have been wary of this proposal and have been fighting it because they believe that it would be very likely that their rights would be infringed upon.

Broadband companies would also be able to block content from their competitors and, block out any website they felt was necessary to continue their success. There was a case in the readings where a certain provider blocked the usage of Craigslist from their users, and they did so because of the lack of legislation.

The other set of interests that could be infringed upon besides there large special interest groups would be television station who stream shows online such as ABC.com, and lastly their customers would be served less fairly. Some people really can’t afford to pay for cable, but through the wonders of the internet they can watch their favorite shows. I don’t think some bigwig who could afford to buy a small island should be able to take away the small piece of happiness I get from watching Dexter on Showtime…online. With slower speeds I couldn’t do that.

I couldn’t really see these large companies being allowed to discriminate against customers in good conscience. The best part of the internet, especially an internet without bounds is the freedom it allows to us as consumers. What would happen if the net was no longer neutral and when you went to buy a car you found you were not able to access the Kelly blue book online? That could possibly happen if car dealers made a deal with these internet companies where they took away our right to be informed so it would be easier to sell us vehicles at a higher price.

I think the beauty of the internet is that we all get the same thing. I remember a lot of my friends had roadrunner before I did because dial up was much cheaper. It took a while for my parents to finally bite the bullet and pay for broadband, but when we did finally get it, it was worth the money. If the net became preferential towards its customers because of what tier of service they could afford I could see the digital divide affecting the U.S. because yes we may have internet access, but what could we access on the internet?

The execs from these companies said that tiered service would allow to them to increase profits and then in turn they could improve the service they provide us by improving infrastructure. However, in the readings it was said that in Japan and Korea, both countries are net neutral, but they are using networks that are infinitely faster that ours and they pay significantly less. I think that you can achieve anything on a budget, so I think that’s what these companies need to do instead of asking for more money. Maybe they should wait for some of the cables they use in Japan to go on sale, they we can all have more for less.

Art Often Imitates Life

In Second Life the open economy encourages you to spend your offline money online. This is a concept that is completely foreign to me. I could never see myself taking my hard earned dollars and giving them away to someone online, so I could buy and item, that would exist only online. However, what doesn’t necessarily make sense to me makes sense to the millions of users of Second Life.
When I look at this specific economy with a critical lens the first problem that jumps out at me is, what are people doing to get the money they spend in the Second Life economy? I believe these games are for people who are really looking for an escape for the every day realities of their unfulfilled lives. As I saw in the readings that’s not always the case, some users are relatively affluent and relatively educated, especially in the case of the man who worked for Proctor and Gamble and held two patents.
However, for the user I envision in my head, the twenty-something high school graduate who lives at home or in a dingy apartment with little disposable income left over from his slightly over minimum wage job, how is he affording to pay the membership fees? Also, where is he getting the money to buy items in this virtual world? I would imagine that at times he may choose to buy something on Second Life rather than pay his bills in real life, because men have funny priorities.
As far as WoW, there aren’t many initial problems I see with the economy except for the exploitation of the people who are paid to advance players to certain levels. The sweatshops where we used to get textile products have turned into sweatshops where we finally get to be the level 59 Grandmaster Ogre we always wanted to be for the low price of $250 US.
WoW discourages the sale of services and property for real life money, but to stop such a profitable enterprise would be extremely tough to do. As we saw in the article about the sweatshops in China where these employees aren’t making very much money, it is still more than they would make elsewhere in exchange for not having to do hard labor. If that were an option available to me I might take the opportunity.
I can’t really see a problem with putting money into virtual worlds. I think that there have been many vices that people invested in offline, and we may not think it’s prudent, but it’s an option available to them. I remember watching an episode of MTV’s True Life series. They chronicled people who had alternate lives online. One girl was an aspiring singer, but she had extreme shyness. She utilized second life to put her music in the public realm and even had a sizable following in Second Life.
I don’t look at her and think she’s pathetic, I think that there are different ways to achieve what it is you want to do. I do however think that, if you put so much of your efforts into these virtual worlds, you lose the chance to improve your life offline. I always think what these people would be capable of if they took their time and efforts and just applied it to better themselves in the real world.