Reading 09: Why is no one talking about a Decentralized Internet?

I’m not sure where I stand in terms of net neutrality. It seems to be an interesting mix of problems, and there’s technically websites that dominant the web space anyway. I can’t quite come to terms with being in favor or against it, because on one hand, it makes sense to charge different amounts of something to a service or content that does need more support like a video streaming service compared to visiting a website. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of net neutrality being taken away to suddenly allow essentially a censored Internet. The extreme would be if ISPs start blocking or intentionally slowing down access to certain websites or services online. However, what’s more likely to happen is something like the analogy of putting your foot in the door. For example, AT&T already doesn’t count DirectTV service as part of the data plan, but any other streaming service does take up data.

There’s one point that some articles have called ambiguous, which was whether net neutrality prevents innovation. Preventing innovation is kind of bullshit. I feel as though innovation actually works when there’s less options. It’s kind of like how if there’s more flavors on a menu for choosing ice cream, you have a harder time thinking about what to choose. Innovation works by getting around obstacles, and it doesn’t stop because some rule said it can’t be done.  Also, in terms of burdening corporations, then that also sounds like a space for something innovative to pop up in. There’s a lot of problems that have a need for innovation, and all I’m saying is that there’s companies that have proven themselves in that department compared to others instead of taking it out on customer service and making that worse.

So the ISP companies saying that they would be able to put more funding into better infrastructure of their service seems more sketchy compared to the other side of tech giants (like Google, Facebook, etc.) where they have proven themselves over and over again to come out with new products, new ideas, and new features.

But I can’t decide how I feel about net neutrality, because I believe that there’s already better ideas in the works.

Also, in terms of innovation, I really hope that one day, net neutrality laws won’t matter in the end with the idea of a decentralized internet. If Internet access isn’t owned by giant corporations and is instead given to the users, then that really allows fair access to come to play. If the Internet was instead, accessible on each person’s computer, then that allows for a true competitive market, since everyone’s a player and a playee.

In terms of the Internet and access to it being a basic human right, I wish it was. I think it would certainly boost the standard of living throughout the world. However, this isn’t the case, as the tools needed for such access can cost a lot to low socioeconomic families. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not uncommon for people to go through life without the Internet for most of their life, and that certainly does put a damper on people’s collective knowledge.

Reading 08: Special Treatment isn’t Unfamiliar

First off, corporate personhood is based off of the idea that just as the law applies to a citizen of the U.S, a corporate company in the U.S should also have those same laws applied to them as well. It encompasses an entire debate on what rights and laws apply to companies since there are clear differences between a person and a corporate company in an ethical, social, and legal context.

In terms of the Microsoft antitrust case, I think that what Microsoft did was definitely unethical. However, it is interesting that the initial punishment was not carried out in the end. Instead of splitting the company into two, it was taken to the circuit court and Microsoft was then given a less intense punishment, which was to make their competitor’s software and products more integral into their Window’s operating system instead of purposely forcing other companies to use their products through shady deals and integrated products into the OS. In the end, it’s weird to see that instead of there being smaller companies, it encouraged other companies to almost be of the same size if not bigger, such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Even though the impact of forcing everyone to use the same OS has definitely diminished, since most software products are OS agnostic and there’s more optional OS’s that are usable in the market today, it still hasn’t tackled the possible problem of giving companies humungous influence to the point where they can usually get away with what most people can’t. This point though has been challenged with social media companies coming to court recently to appease senators’ questions and have a conversation about the data they have. However, it’s interesting to note that even though a company like Facebook can have a data breach where its impact is so huge that it’s taken to Court, social media becomes integral to everyday life and usage on other sites that most people wouldn’t really bother to get rid of it.

It’s weird to say that corporates should have the same rights as people. It’s almost counterintuitive since a corporate is made up of so many different people in the meantime that have different thoughts and morals themselves. However, if a corporate is handed the same rights and responsibilities as people, then the consequences should be the same. It is almost like how most people though on the top of the socioeconomic ladder seem to get away with a lot of crime, just like how companies with huge influence get away with a lot of things that may or may not cross the line. Overall, it’s not like high standing people don’t get away with this too.

Reading 07: White Noise

Even though the Internet is filled of a lot of hate, there’s one thing that everyone can hate on together, and that’s online advertising. Users flame advertisements all the time, making fun of them even in comment sections of videos that have them playing. And from a user experience perspective, it really is the bane of UX/UI. Since it’s been hard to figure out the sweet spot of informational vs annoying both from a general experience side to figuring out where to actually place it on the page, ads rarely get clicked on.

There’s also another story here. On top of the fact that now a majority of users wouldn’t want to click on ads in the first place, there’s safety concerns as well. So instead of blaming any inherent laziness, there’s always the chance that clicking on an ad can lead to disastrous results.

In terms of advertising invading privacy, I was intrigued by the interesting premise made by Alexis C. Madrigal in the article, “How Much Is Your Data Worth? Mmm, Somewhere Between Half a Cent and $1,200, where she references a survey done by Carnegie Mellon faculty saying “that is to say: if people think data is already flowing to a website, few would pay to hold it back. But if they think their data is being held back, a large majority would be unwilling to share it.” It’s similar to the idea of first putting your foot in the door to then get your idea into people’s heads. Thus in a more privacy-invasive world, as more and more of out data becomes accessible, sometimes without us even knowing it, privacy one day may just be obliterated. Google for example, has held information about users even without permission, such as keeping track of location even when the location feature on phones was supposed to be turned off. This also leads to new Facebook paranoia where users are concerned that Facebook is somehow hearing or listening to what they talk about. Thus online advertising in effect, becomes extremely invasive. Besides the extreme examples of the Buzzfeed article talking about how Facebook advertising knew a user was gay before he did and the Target advertisements of baby products to a customer before she knew she was pregnant, some future examples could include abusing the emotional state of users and thus convince people for example, insecure about their body image to buy lots of products such as protein, fat-burning exercise programs, and more.

However, it’s actually interesting as a lot of ads are becoming more intriguing, and sometimes I actually did find myself staying to watch one, even though that’s still rare. But due to a lot of users desensitizing themselves to ads and dismissing them as essentially the Internet’s white noise, I wouldn’t be surprised that even if ads to present revenue to companies and content creators, a lot of people would still use Adblock or something of the sort. It’s like when you’re in a room with a somewhat loud AC. At some point, you’re not going to even notice that it’s there any longer.