It's Not So Bad After All

“What?! Are you kidding me?!”
That was my reaction when Emi told us that we had to maintain a blog for the semester as part of our grade for the class. Sure, I knew what blogs were; they were those online diaries that political super-junkies and Net lovers ranted on. Well, to be honest, that was my opinion of them. Now, I can’t say that I enjoyed posting to my blog everyday, but I can say that it was more enjoyable than traditional homework requirements. It was interesting to read the other blogs and see viewpoints that aren’t always expressed in the classroom, and I must admit, I liked being able to share my own opinions and get feedback. I don’t know if I’ll keep up my blog after the final, it could be fun, but regardless, I have Emi, Phil, and my classmates to thank for introducing me to this medium and changing my preconceived notions about it.

Copyright Extremes

I was really struck by the excerpt from Lawrence Lessig’s The Future of Ideas. I immediately thought of product placements in television shows and movies and how much companies pay for that “advertising.” So when someone turns down, not even turns down, but actually fights free advertising, I’m a little confused. I definitely think that people should be able to have their creative work protected, but it gets to a point at which it seems like certain people don’t just want their work protected, they want it hidden, but why? The examples Lessig gives from Twelve Monkeys, The Devil’s Advocate, and Batman Forever are examples of copyright law gone rampant. Lessig is right; these copyright law extremes are “burdens to the creative process” and will be the same burdens for innovation if they are not controlled.

Bare With Me

OK, so I’ve come out and said that I think Nielsen is wrong, and I do on almost all points. You’ll have to read this entire post to know that I’m not being contradictory. I do think that Nielsen makes one somewhat valid point in, “The Case for Micropayments.” He says that “subscription fees fence you in,” and it’s true, they do. For example, a lot of newspaper Web sites make you subscribe before you can retrieve any articles from the archives. You end up having to pay a subscription fee to look at even one article. It would make more sense if sites like this would charge you a small fee for each article you download rather than making you subscribe and pay a much larger fee. This would benefit both the site and the users as the users would get what they want, and the site wouldn’t turn people away with their subscription fees.

No Case for Micropayments

I know everyone has taken his or her turn, and now it’s mine turn to say, “Nielsen is wrong!” Let me break this down by taking a couple quotes from his “The Case for Micropayments” article and explain why I disagree.

First, Nielsen wrote, “ Ultimately, those who pay for something control it. Currently, most websites that don't sell things are funded by advertising. Thus, they will be controlled by advertisers and will become less and less useful to the users.” Network television is paid for by advertising, and although we pay monthly fees for our cable or satellite television, it is arguably also controlled by advertising. These media still serve their purpose and are useful to those who watch them even though they are funded primarily by advertising.

Second, Nielsen wrote, “On the Web, users should not worry about a cent per page. If a page is not worth a cent, then you should not download it in the first place.” Isn’t the whole idea of surfing the web to discover new sites and new sources of information and/or entertainment? In many cases, how will I know if a site is worth even a penny until after I have viewed it?

Nielsen also parallels micropayments for Internet usage to electricity payments. I don’t think that’s a very good analogy. Let me give you a better one. Do you like to flip channels on the television? Well, let’s say that every time you change the channel, you will be billed a few cents and that way you won’t have to watch ads. Personally, I’ll deal with the ads in order to keep my money in my pocket.

Still Studying...

I need to study!!!

Sorry to use one of these on you again, but it is finals week so I'm pretty busy.

We Can Handle It!

What's that saying? Isn't it something like, "Give them an inch, and they'll take a foot?" Well, Shapiro would be wise to take heed to that advice. In chapter 21 of The Control Revolution, he discusses the role he thinks the government should play in regulating the Internet. I think his ideas are a little too optimistic and trusting of the government. Once you open up the door to government regulation, you might as well open up the floodgates. One example he gives is the creation of a "privacy safety net" so that there will be "a minimal level of personal information privacy that cannot be taken from us even if we think that bartering it away with a click of the mouse makes sense." What about personal responsibility? Are we not the consumers? Is it not our information to give away as we please? Shapiro must think we're too incompetent and thus, in need of protection. He's being optomistic about and trusting of the wrong people.

Persistence Can Be Annoying

OK, so yesterday I'm on the metro, and this man sits next to me and immediately strikes up an inquisitive conversation. He was very curious, asking me question after question. He was very persistent. Did I find this annoying? Not really, he was a fellow Southerner excited to be in the nation's capital so I sort of welcomed the friendly small talk that you don't find so much here in D.C. However, would most metro riders have found this annoying? My guess is probably. To some he may have been an aggravation in the midst of their busy day, but this guy wasn't really doing anything wrong. I wasn't being violated by this persistent conversation. I was just being talked to whether I invited the conversation or not.

This 3 minute conversation came to mind when I was thinking about another one of Fogg's "unique ethical concerns related to persuasive technology," the idea that the persistence of computers creates an ethical concern. I think this is more a concern of annoyance than of ethics. For instance, a pop-up screen is "in your face," but as the user, you can use pop-up blockers or you can simply choose not to click on or even read the advertisement. The same goes for unsolicited e-mails that clog your inbox. Like regular junk mail, they are aggravating, but they are in no way a violation of your ethical rights. I argue that the user is not being violated by a computer's proactive persistence but rather, just being annoyed.

Two Days Off

Day Off