the clash between freedom and control...

Over the semester, I have often alluded to Siva Vaidhyanathan's book, The Anarchist in the Library. I will be the first to admit that I did not find much of it very interesting. It was published a year ago, but much of it already seemed out of date. Control of information evolves and changes so rapidly, it's almost impossible to keep up. But in his conclusion, Vaidhyanathan made two observations that stand the test of time.

The first line that struck me as ironically true is the American government's feeling that "Too much truth is dangerous, and lies make us safer." As Americans, we have always prided ourselves on our freedoms of speech and expression and strong sense of democracy for all. But in the past few years, attacks on our soil and a President who seems to believe in the theory of acting now and explaining later, Americans have often felt as betrayed by our own government and by some of our own cultures. Do we still pride ourselves on being a "melting pot" of culture when we now are suspicious of the loyalty of some of our own?

Which brings me to the second observation, how do we control the negative aspect of some cultures while still extolling our democratic values? Vaidhyanathan noted, "As cultures build themselves and proliferate, they pretty much follow anarchists' description of the ideal political state...Culture builds itself without leaders." So what right do leaders have to then dictate how cultures manifest themselves? Just in the past few years, Americans have been witness to detainment of members of certain cultural groups for our own safety, a war being fought in order to further democracy, and not so random security checks at airports. What is the line between a government's limits on freedom and doing what it needs to do to keep its people safe?

I don't know the answer, Vaidhyanathan doesn't know the answer either. But we're both unsettled by what he terms "the clash between freedom and control," and one concerned for the battle for information will effect cultures and politics in the future.

Since I haven't had a day off yet...

Is persuasion inherently unethical?

I've never really considered the ethics involved with Internet technology, perhaps because I've always accepted its persuasion techniques as an annoying fact of life, but after reading Fogg's thoughts on the issue in his book Persuasive Technology, I see how there should be some cause for concern.

I am very aware not to click on pop up or banner ads advising me that I have $1,000 or a free ipod waiting for me, but is a 12 year old? I know that my family computer back home in NC is so laden with viruses from programs my brother either purposely or inadvertently downloaded that it is often impossible to get online at this point. Like anything in life, many people fail to read the fine print associated with downloads or promotions, which can turn out to be an extremely frustrating and/or expensive mistake. And there's not much a person can do to combat it. A computer isn't a person, you can't take it to court. Whenever I call Dell for technical support, an automated voice reminds me as I'm holding that they are not responsible for any problems cause by third party software and all they can do to help is recommend programs that may or may not help.

Fogg also made a suggestion in which a company could use the Internet as a tool for operant conditioning (Bandura's theory concerning the use of reinforcement or punishment to promote certain behavior).

For instance, a company could create a Web browser that uses operant conditioning to change people's Web surfing behavior without their awareness. If the browser were programmed to give faster page downloads to certain Web sites - say, those affiliated with the company's strategic partners - and delay the download of other sites, users would be subtly rewarded for accessing certain sites and punished for visiting others.

Fogg considers this possibility unethical and so do I. What worries me most is that chances are good even people that are fairly technologically knowledgeable like myself would likely have no idea it was happening. Between work and school, I am a busy person with no time to wait around for pages to load. As the Web becomes increasingly savvy and more people of all ages and cultures log on, ethical red flags will continue to be a cause for concern. It's great that the Net is unregulated and a true platform for freedom of expression but are the costs getting too high?