Consider the concept of a “community of practice.” How can such a community offer opportunities for learning?
Communities of practice, Shirky states, are developing rapidly on the internet. Every latent community can become one of practice by someone posting a comment and getting a response. These communities of practice are basically where people can share common interests and work things out together. One of Shirky's examples is that of a community on Flickr where members share pictures using different photography techniques and comment on how they can improve them. This example offers a great opportunity for learning. An amateur photographer may be in this community with someone who has been doing it for years and can give them some very specific and helpful advice on how to better their work. These groups aren't just for hobbies, but there are communities for individuals struggling with certain diseases or hardships, working in the same field, and travelling to the same places. They offer encouragement, support, feedback, and aid. These communities are often geared towards a very particular audience.
My dad works with security on computers. The companies he has worked for have the most thorough virus scanning software and firewalls that money can buy. He works with these products all day and then tries to install them on our computers. Seeing that our computers are not that great, they really bog down the speed and take forever to load and scan...it's a pain. We finally convince him of the inconvenience and he switches to normal software, but the normal setting are not good enough (he feels) to fully protect our and our computers' safety. Thankfully, he is a member to different online "communities of practice" designed for computer and safety-minded individuals to discuss how to get the most out of your anti-virus software while also having a computer that actually works. He can post what he's tried to do on our system and then other's (in his field of work) tell him how to modify it to get it working better. Personally, I am thankful to these online communities because it no longer takes thirty minutes for the computers in my house to load.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
When Technology Becomes Invisible
If Shirky is right, and we’re headed to a period where social media tools like YouTube, Flickr, and social networks like Facebook become “invisible,” what’s the impact on things you spend money on as consumers? Books? Movies? Music?
In chapter 4 of Here Comes Everybody, Shirky states that technologies do not profoundly change society until they are spread so widely through society that they become "invisible". These technologies are no longer seen as exciting, but we depend on them and inherently understand them. Social media tools and networks appear to be quickly becoming this integrated into society.
"Talkies" have become Imax 3-d motion pictures and are distributed through blue ray discs or downloaded straight to your TV, records have become mP3 downloads, and books have been uploaded to the web and are readable through Ipads and Kindles. The methods and products changed, but what we buy and why we buy (for entertainment, necessity, information, etc.) hasn't. I think the main problem that will continue to arise as social media tools and networks become more prevalent in the lack of buying that will take place. Napster is an example of this. When it first came out, it was so unique it gained enough visibility that the government stepped in and ruled it illegal and sued the company which eventually shut down. Now that these technologies are so widespread, there are tons of sites that enable you to format or record music videos from Youtube, songs from Grooveshark, full length TV episodes, and movies so they can be downloaded to any device (if you ignore safety and security risks). There is no way all of these sites can be shut down. I was aiding in a fourth grade class this summer, and they were asked to raise their hands if they had ever gotten free music on the internet. All but 3-4 kids raised their hands. When asked right after who thought this was illegal, only about 5 raised their hands. Many people don't know that downloading free music is illegal (in almost all cases). With greater prevalence of these sites there is less ability to control them and with less knowledge about copyright laws, we could be headed for a problem. Say no one downloads songs, movies, shows, or books, well we can still listen to, watch, or read them whenever we want if we have a computer or a phone with internet connection. Again like with illegal downloads, as sites become more numerous they aren't monitored as closely and more and more gets on them. This hurts the movie, film, and publishing industries.
I think another impact may be that consumers have more of a say in what they get. Let's look at music for example. Before social networks and media sharing, record companies found "talent", recorded them, and showcased them and then consumers basically determine if they are a "hit". Now some unknown singer can post a webcam video of her singing on Youtube, post it to her Facebook page, have all her friends and other viewers post it to there's as well. If people think she's talented she can get millions of views. Then a local newspaper, talk show, or even "America's Got Talent" may notice, and before she knows it, she's a star. The consumers "voted" first by viewing and then the music industry responded. It's not all that far fetched of an idea anymore, and if networks and sharing become so prevalent to be "invisible", I think it will happen more and more.
In chapter 4 of Here Comes Everybody, Shirky states that technologies do not profoundly change society until they are spread so widely through society that they become "invisible". These technologies are no longer seen as exciting, but we depend on them and inherently understand them. Social media tools and networks appear to be quickly becoming this integrated into society.
"Talkies" have become Imax 3-d motion pictures and are distributed through blue ray discs or downloaded straight to your TV, records have become mP3 downloads, and books have been uploaded to the web and are readable through Ipads and Kindles. The methods and products changed, but what we buy and why we buy (for entertainment, necessity, information, etc.) hasn't. I think the main problem that will continue to arise as social media tools and networks become more prevalent in the lack of buying that will take place. Napster is an example of this. When it first came out, it was so unique it gained enough visibility that the government stepped in and ruled it illegal and sued the company which eventually shut down. Now that these technologies are so widespread, there are tons of sites that enable you to format or record music videos from Youtube, songs from Grooveshark, full length TV episodes, and movies so they can be downloaded to any device (if you ignore safety and security risks). There is no way all of these sites can be shut down. I was aiding in a fourth grade class this summer, and they were asked to raise their hands if they had ever gotten free music on the internet. All but 3-4 kids raised their hands. When asked right after who thought this was illegal, only about 5 raised their hands. Many people don't know that downloading free music is illegal (in almost all cases). With greater prevalence of these sites there is less ability to control them and with less knowledge about copyright laws, we could be headed for a problem. Say no one downloads songs, movies, shows, or books, well we can still listen to, watch, or read them whenever we want if we have a computer or a phone with internet connection. Again like with illegal downloads, as sites become more numerous they aren't monitored as closely and more and more gets on them. This hurts the movie, film, and publishing industries.
I think another impact may be that consumers have more of a say in what they get. Let's look at music for example. Before social networks and media sharing, record companies found "talent", recorded them, and showcased them and then consumers basically determine if they are a "hit". Now some unknown singer can post a webcam video of her singing on Youtube, post it to her Facebook page, have all her friends and other viewers post it to there's as well. If people think she's talented she can get millions of views. Then a local newspaper, talk show, or even "America's Got Talent" may notice, and before she knows it, she's a star. The consumers "voted" first by viewing and then the music industry responded. It's not all that far fetched of an idea anymore, and if networks and sharing become so prevalent to be "invisible", I think it will happen more and more.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Online Buying and Selling
Have you used a website like Craigslist or EBay to buy or sell something? What was the experience like/ Would you use such a service again? If you haven't, detail how you have sold or bought something outside the environment of a retailer.
I have used both EBay and Amazon.com for selling and buying outside of a retailer. The main purchases I make from Amazon that are not from retailers are textbooks. I buy them from individual members of the site and have been pleased with the service so far. I can get really good deals on barely used textbooks (so much cheaper than the school bookstore) and sell them again after I'm done for close to the same price. I've always received the books within a week and never had an issue with my purchases. When dealing with Amazon and now eBay, that offer buyer protection, the sites hold money for a certain number days and then refund if the product never comes. Although I would use these sites again for smaller purchasing, when buying large purchases, I still feel safer seeing the product in person first. I've used Amazon to resell books and have used eBay to sell some other things. For me, I have made more than I have when trying to sell things at a yard sale and it's pretty easy. I would do it again if I had a couple products to sell on occasion, but constantly selling things would be too stressful for me, especially on eBay with checking bids and everything.
I have never used Craigslist and don't think I will. Craigslist doesn't have the same kind of buyer protection that the other sites have, so I don't think I'd trust it to buy anything. Because of this lack of security in some most online buying sites, I think retail stores will be around for a long time. You don't know what you're getting to the same extent that you would if you went to a store, saw the product, asked questions about it, and bought it.
I have used both EBay and Amazon.com for selling and buying outside of a retailer. The main purchases I make from Amazon that are not from retailers are textbooks. I buy them from individual members of the site and have been pleased with the service so far. I can get really good deals on barely used textbooks (so much cheaper than the school bookstore) and sell them again after I'm done for close to the same price. I've always received the books within a week and never had an issue with my purchases. When dealing with Amazon and now eBay, that offer buyer protection, the sites hold money for a certain number days and then refund if the product never comes. Although I would use these sites again for smaller purchasing, when buying large purchases, I still feel safer seeing the product in person first. I've used Amazon to resell books and have used eBay to sell some other things. For me, I have made more than I have when trying to sell things at a yard sale and it's pretty easy. I would do it again if I had a couple products to sell on occasion, but constantly selling things would be too stressful for me, especially on eBay with checking bids and everything.
I have never used Craigslist and don't think I will. Craigslist doesn't have the same kind of buyer protection that the other sites have, so I don't think I'd trust it to buy anything. Because of this lack of security in some most online buying sites, I think retail stores will be around for a long time. You don't know what you're getting to the same extent that you would if you went to a store, saw the product, asked questions about it, and bought it.
Getting Answers
You have an important personal question you'd like answered. Explain the procedure for getting your question answered and why this method appeals to you (you don't need to get specific, but let's assume the answer does not require specific expert knowledge, as from a doctor).
In finding an answer to an important personal question, I would first fully formulate my question. I would then probably type in key words into an internet search engine, such as Google, to see what others have done in similar situations. If a key word search didn't work, I'd just type in the whole question. I would not solely trust these answers because there is no way to undoubtedly know who wrote them. After doing some "preliminary research", I would discuss the answers I found with a friend or one of my parents to see what they thought and figure out an answer through that. I've done this a lot with questions about cooking this year (and yes, I know these aren't that personal of questions). I don't need an expert opinion to know how to cook a sweet potato in the oven, I just need the opinion of someone who has cooked one. So in the middle of cooking when I can't find a house mate or get a hold of my mom, I look to Google.
Even though I almost always go to an actual person for answer or advice, I usually start with the internet because when I think of a question I usually don't want to wait for a friend to return a call before beginning to seek out an answer. I like that the internet is pretty much instantaneous, this way I can start thinking about different answers (by using the internet) and ask the opinion of someone I trust (by later asking a friend). As Shriky states in chapter 3 of Here Comes Everybody, the internet has changed the "overall ecosystem of information" (p. 56). We no longer have to sift through many books and magazine articles hoping we will find the answer we're looking for. Almost anything is on the internet because it has changed the question of publishing "from Why publish this? to Why not?" (p. 60). We have free answers at the click of a button; the problem lies in trusting these answers without testing their validity.
In finding an answer to an important personal question, I would first fully formulate my question. I would then probably type in key words into an internet search engine, such as Google, to see what others have done in similar situations. If a key word search didn't work, I'd just type in the whole question. I would not solely trust these answers because there is no way to undoubtedly know who wrote them. After doing some "preliminary research", I would discuss the answers I found with a friend or one of my parents to see what they thought and figure out an answer through that. I've done this a lot with questions about cooking this year (and yes, I know these aren't that personal of questions). I don't need an expert opinion to know how to cook a sweet potato in the oven, I just need the opinion of someone who has cooked one. So in the middle of cooking when I can't find a house mate or get a hold of my mom, I look to Google.
Even though I almost always go to an actual person for answer or advice, I usually start with the internet because when I think of a question I usually don't want to wait for a friend to return a call before beginning to seek out an answer. I like that the internet is pretty much instantaneous, this way I can start thinking about different answers (by using the internet) and ask the opinion of someone I trust (by later asking a friend). As Shriky states in chapter 3 of Here Comes Everybody, the internet has changed the "overall ecosystem of information" (p. 56). We no longer have to sift through many books and magazine articles hoping we will find the answer we're looking for. Almost anything is on the internet because it has changed the question of publishing "from Why publish this? to Why not?" (p. 60). We have free answers at the click of a button; the problem lies in trusting these answers without testing their validity.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Group Organization (Blog 2, Week 3)
Describe a group you are a member of (online community, church, job, etc.) and how it is organized. Is there management? How is information distributed within the group?
I am a member of a Methodist church back at home which definitely has a form of management. Our church is overseen by a district superintendent for our district and a bishop to make sure the church and other methodist churches in our area are "running smoothly". They organize the churches in the district to support a certain mission project or study a certain book of the Bible during a particular month. District leaders also help share information of one church with other churches in the district. The next level in the "hierarchy" would be the pastoral staff at my church including our pastor and the assistant pastor. They oversee other church leadership and head/help appoint the church council which oversees the body of the church. We have different committees for lay leaders, education and leadership (organizing Bible studies and small groups), trustees (maintain church grounds), finance (count money/distribute it), missions, music, children's ministry, youth ministry, and the list goes on and on. Heads of these committees regularly meet with the pastors and then meet with the other committee members to get things accomplished. There are also weekly staff meetings for all actual staff which further organize and discuss the runnings of the church. Basically, there are many different levels in the organization of the church so things get accomplished; the specialization and division of different committees also helps to insure this. Although the members of the congregation don't often talk to the district superintendents or even the pastors, they know what is happening in the church because of the different levels.
The way information is distributed within the group has changed over the years. At first information (events happening that weeks/prayer requests/etc.) was given in the announcements at the beginning of each church service and occasionally through phone calls during the week, soon bulletins were also given out every Sunday morning so we'd have schedules throughout the week, now the church website is the easiest way of getting the most accurate information about church happenings. The bulletin is posted there, along with updated church announcements and highlighted events. During high school, I worked for the graphic designer who was creating the new church website. It was interesting to see how much the church leadership wanted to join a more digital age. It went from being a site with the church's address, picture, and staff pictures, to having recorded sermons, up-to-date information, and even online tithing. This shift literally occurred over the span of a couple weeks. Since then, certain Bible studies and groups within the church (youth group/young adults mostly) have even began organizing and sharing information through Facebook, however our church as a whole is not there quite yet.
I am a member of a Methodist church back at home which definitely has a form of management. Our church is overseen by a district superintendent for our district and a bishop to make sure the church and other methodist churches in our area are "running smoothly". They organize the churches in the district to support a certain mission project or study a certain book of the Bible during a particular month. District leaders also help share information of one church with other churches in the district. The next level in the "hierarchy" would be the pastoral staff at my church including our pastor and the assistant pastor. They oversee other church leadership and head/help appoint the church council which oversees the body of the church. We have different committees for lay leaders, education and leadership (organizing Bible studies and small groups), trustees (maintain church grounds), finance (count money/distribute it), missions, music, children's ministry, youth ministry, and the list goes on and on. Heads of these committees regularly meet with the pastors and then meet with the other committee members to get things accomplished. There are also weekly staff meetings for all actual staff which further organize and discuss the runnings of the church. Basically, there are many different levels in the organization of the church so things get accomplished; the specialization and division of different committees also helps to insure this. Although the members of the congregation don't often talk to the district superintendents or even the pastors, they know what is happening in the church because of the different levels.
The way information is distributed within the group has changed over the years. At first information (events happening that weeks/prayer requests/etc.) was given in the announcements at the beginning of each church service and occasionally through phone calls during the week, soon bulletins were also given out every Sunday morning so we'd have schedules throughout the week, now the church website is the easiest way of getting the most accurate information about church happenings. The bulletin is posted there, along with updated church announcements and highlighted events. During high school, I worked for the graphic designer who was creating the new church website. It was interesting to see how much the church leadership wanted to join a more digital age. It went from being a site with the church's address, picture, and staff pictures, to having recorded sermons, up-to-date information, and even online tithing. This shift literally occurred over the span of a couple weeks. Since then, certain Bible studies and groups within the church (youth group/young adults mostly) have even began organizing and sharing information through Facebook, however our church as a whole is not there quite yet.
Formation of Groups
If managers aren’t important anymore towards the formation or control of groups using online tools, what do you consider the main role websites such as Meetup.com, Facebook, or MySpace have provided newly emerging groups?
Chapter two of Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, goes into detail about the vast changes that have encountered the process of forming organizations and groups. Shirky states that, in the past, organizations and firms had a strong need for organizational hierarchies (i.e. managers and assistant managers) to communicate and run smoothly. Without managers, groups were in danger of failing. He provides an example of the danger in lack of organization when discussing Western Railroad. This particular Railroad company used one track for both directions of trains and had many tracks cross one another. Because of a lack effective organization and communication, two of their passenger trains collided in 1841, killing and injuring many people.
Now, thanks to advanced technologies and websites such as Meetup.com, Facebook, and MySpace, managers and organized hierarchy are no longer needed for sharing, collaboration, and collective action to occur. These sites allow individuals with specific interests, ideas, and beliefs to unite together by simply clicking a "like this", "join group", or "meet up" button. After clicking an icon to join the group or cause, everyone can share their beliefs, stories, and photos. They can plan events, whether they are parties, meetings, rallies, or even protests. Once an event is created, everyone who joined the group gets the information with no need for phone trees. I think the main role these sites provide emerging groups is a forum for individuals to organize. Never before has it been so easy for supporters of any cause to organize. A couple years ago, a football coach at my former high school was being forced to retire because of his age. The students and faculty alike were deeply saddened that this was happening and felt helpless until someone started a Facebook group for supporters of the coach to join. Not only did faculty, students, and parents joined, but so did former students who lived all across the country. Members of the group shared their favorite members of the coach, signed various petitions against his forced retirement, wrote in letters to the school, and organized to attend a school board meeting. Two years later and the coach is still there. The powerful response the group presented would not have been easy without one of these sites, if it would be possible at all. This is the type of sharing, collaborating, and collective action that Shirky explains the internet is making so much easier.
Source: Shirky, C. (2009). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Boston: Penguin (Non-Classics).
Chapter two of Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, goes into detail about the vast changes that have encountered the process of forming organizations and groups. Shirky states that, in the past, organizations and firms had a strong need for organizational hierarchies (i.e. managers and assistant managers) to communicate and run smoothly. Without managers, groups were in danger of failing. He provides an example of the danger in lack of organization when discussing Western Railroad. This particular Railroad company used one track for both directions of trains and had many tracks cross one another. Because of a lack effective organization and communication, two of their passenger trains collided in 1841, killing and injuring many people.
Now, thanks to advanced technologies and websites such as Meetup.com, Facebook, and MySpace, managers and organized hierarchy are no longer needed for sharing, collaboration, and collective action to occur. These sites allow individuals with specific interests, ideas, and beliefs to unite together by simply clicking a "like this", "join group", or "meet up" button. After clicking an icon to join the group or cause, everyone can share their beliefs, stories, and photos. They can plan events, whether they are parties, meetings, rallies, or even protests. Once an event is created, everyone who joined the group gets the information with no need for phone trees. I think the main role these sites provide emerging groups is a forum for individuals to organize. Never before has it been so easy for supporters of any cause to organize. A couple years ago, a football coach at my former high school was being forced to retire because of his age. The students and faculty alike were deeply saddened that this was happening and felt helpless until someone started a Facebook group for supporters of the coach to join. Not only did faculty, students, and parents joined, but so did former students who lived all across the country. Members of the group shared their favorite members of the coach, signed various petitions against his forced retirement, wrote in letters to the school, and organized to attend a school board meeting. Two years later and the coach is still there. The powerful response the group presented would not have been easy without one of these sites, if it would be possible at all. This is the type of sharing, collaborating, and collective action that Shirky explains the internet is making so much easier.
Source: Shirky, C. (2009). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Boston: Penguin (Non-Classics).
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Loyalty Cards
Chapter 2 revealed the reason behind grocery loyalty cards. How do you feel about the use of these cards that offer us discounts at the register? Do you feel your purchasing privacy is worth a discount?
In Blown to Bits, Abelson, Ledeen, and Lewis provide valuable insight into the true cost of grocery loyalty cards-a loss of privacy by the card holder. I have never actually signed up for a loyalty card, but I've been with my mom when she has. She was given a brochure with the benefits, privacy policy, and user agreement to read over. These companies may be a bit cryptic about their partner companies which have access to the information, but they don't keep their right to the card holder's purchasing information a secret.It is the fault of the consumer if they don't read the information about the card.
Even after being informed about the implications of these cards, I still would probably sign up for one in the future. For me, purchasing privacy at a couple of my most frequented stores would be worth the discount. I'm not buying anything incriminating, and if it is a store I go to often, the savings do add up. Some have even been offering discounts for gasoline by using the card as well, and that really saves money. I would now definitely read the information accompanying the membership before signing up and would only sign up for the grocery store I go to most often. I've been to stores before where particular cashiers who I've had often made comments about changing brands or varieties on a particular item. To me, that feels more like someone is watching what I'm buying than companies having my purchases in a database and using them for advertising. I guess my relative indifference, as chapter two states, just shows that we live in an "exposed world" now (p. 39).
Besides only signing up for one store, to protect myself I would not sign up for a card if it asked me for a bank number, credit card number, or social security number. This information getting into the wrong hands could lead to identity theft, but I don't see that high of a risk in a store knowing my name and what brand of cereal I buy.
"I pledge" KMR
In Blown to Bits, Abelson, Ledeen, and Lewis provide valuable insight into the true cost of grocery loyalty cards-a loss of privacy by the card holder. I have never actually signed up for a loyalty card, but I've been with my mom when she has. She was given a brochure with the benefits, privacy policy, and user agreement to read over. These companies may be a bit cryptic about their partner companies which have access to the information, but they don't keep their right to the card holder's purchasing information a secret.It is the fault of the consumer if they don't read the information about the card.
Even after being informed about the implications of these cards, I still would probably sign up for one in the future. For me, purchasing privacy at a couple of my most frequented stores would be worth the discount. I'm not buying anything incriminating, and if it is a store I go to often, the savings do add up. Some have even been offering discounts for gasoline by using the card as well, and that really saves money. I would now definitely read the information accompanying the membership before signing up and would only sign up for the grocery store I go to most often. I've been to stores before where particular cashiers who I've had often made comments about changing brands or varieties on a particular item. To me, that feels more like someone is watching what I'm buying than companies having my purchases in a database and using them for advertising. I guess my relative indifference, as chapter two states, just shows that we live in an "exposed world" now (p. 39).
Besides only signing up for one store, to protect myself I would not sign up for a card if it asked me for a bank number, credit card number, or social security number. This information getting into the wrong hands could lead to identity theft, but I don't see that high of a risk in a store knowing my name and what brand of cereal I buy.
"I pledge" KMR
Search Engine Censoring in China
Both Google and Yahoo have been criticized for censoring their search results in China. What are your feelings about this? Why should Google, or why should not, produce different search results for different countries?
Different countries have different forms of government and different citizen liberties. While our government has tried to define and protect individual rights (in many cases), this is not so for many nations. China, in particular, has been known to censor speech and press, and it even has policies to limit the number of children each couple can have. Since the Chinese government is so watchful of it's population, it is not surprise that they censor what information is available through search engines, nor does it surprise me that companies like Google and Yahoo are willing to abide.
By abiding by different countries' censorship policies, like China, these companies are respecting their governments and, therefore, are avoiding getting blocked altogether. As a BBC news article reveals, Google has recently stopped censoring its search results in China. Since China's population is so large and the number of internet users is rapidly growing, it is important for the growth of Google to keep it's business in China. Google would loose business and growth opportunity whether it would be blocked altogether or there would be repercussions for citizens who visited the site, causing citizens to find a different, less risky search engine to use. Since the government monitors the internet activity of citizens, by removing certain sites from searches, Google and Yahoo are/were also, in a way, protecting the population who may otherwise stumble on one of these cites and face consequences.
Not only should Google continue abiding by censorship laws in other countries to protect their business, but it also would seem to protect authors from other countries whose names may appear on an uncensored web search. As Abelson states at the end of the first chapter of Blown to Bits, when books are bought in other countries, they are subject to the libel laws of that country. I'm sure there are articles and books that are less than complementary of the Chinese government. If these were to be found online and distributed in China, the author could probably face charges. I don't agree with censorship by governments, but if governments are already censoring, I think it is safe and economically smart to abide by the laws.
Sources:
Abelson, Hal, Ken Ledeen, Harry Lewis. Blown to Bits. 2008. Upper Saddle River, NJ
"Google Stops Censoring Search Results in China". BBC News. 23 March 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8581393.stm
"I pledge" KMR
Different countries have different forms of government and different citizen liberties. While our government has tried to define and protect individual rights (in many cases), this is not so for many nations. China, in particular, has been known to censor speech and press, and it even has policies to limit the number of children each couple can have. Since the Chinese government is so watchful of it's population, it is not surprise that they censor what information is available through search engines, nor does it surprise me that companies like Google and Yahoo are willing to abide.
By abiding by different countries' censorship policies, like China, these companies are respecting their governments and, therefore, are avoiding getting blocked altogether. As a BBC news article reveals, Google has recently stopped censoring its search results in China. Since China's population is so large and the number of internet users is rapidly growing, it is important for the growth of Google to keep it's business in China. Google would loose business and growth opportunity whether it would be blocked altogether or there would be repercussions for citizens who visited the site, causing citizens to find a different, less risky search engine to use. Since the government monitors the internet activity of citizens, by removing certain sites from searches, Google and Yahoo are/were also, in a way, protecting the population who may otherwise stumble on one of these cites and face consequences.
Not only should Google continue abiding by censorship laws in other countries to protect their business, but it also would seem to protect authors from other countries whose names may appear on an uncensored web search. As Abelson states at the end of the first chapter of Blown to Bits, when books are bought in other countries, they are subject to the libel laws of that country. I'm sure there are articles and books that are less than complementary of the Chinese government. If these were to be found online and distributed in China, the author could probably face charges. I don't agree with censorship by governments, but if governments are already censoring, I think it is safe and economically smart to abide by the laws.
Sources:
Abelson, Hal, Ken Ledeen, Harry Lewis. Blown to Bits. 2008. Upper Saddle River, NJ
"Google Stops Censoring Search Results in China". BBC News. 23 March 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8581393.stm
"I pledge" KMR
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)