Republic.com 2.0 Part One

press.princeton.edu

Cass R. Sunstein’s Republic.com 2.0 explores into our era of personalization and filtering. Technology has enabled our abilities to focus solely on our interests and nothing else. A modern day example of filtering would be Sunstein’s example, “The Daily Me” where people can restrict themselves to their own preferred points of view. Extreme filtering can cause only one point of view, more formally known as information cocoons. This is then followed by the “echo chamber effect” where people only create and navigate online spaces that reinforce their preferred world-view. These two things can threaten our democratic world.

People need to see new point of views, opinions, and subjects that they wouldn’t have thought about before so we are not so narrow-minded. General-interest intermediaries involve shared experiences with diversities, and expose people to materials and topics that they did not seek out beforehand. Examples of general-interest intermediaries include: newspapers, TV broadcasts, and magazines. However, these are on the decline because people can filter out what news they want to read, hear, or see on the Internet. I believe there has to a need for general-interest intermediaries because we need diverse opinions and more open minds. If everyone thought the same, it would even encourage governments to control and censor new and emerging ideas.

Sunstein argues that the decline in general-interest intermediaries has led to an increase in polarization. Using politics as an example, he provides studies that show that conservatives tend to embrace Fox News and shy away from CNN and NPR while liberals go out of their way to avoid Fox News and are more inclined to watch CNN or listen to NPR. He also points out that conservative sites increasingly link only to other conservative sites and less to liberal sites. The same trend is true of liberal sites. This creates a polarization effect because people hear views that reinforce their own beliefs and denigrate the other point of view.
In a vacuum, Sunstein has a point. If you only visited liberal sites on the internet as a liberal, obviously your liberal ideas would be reinforced. However, I think that he is looking at this too specifically. Even if, among political sites, I only follow liberal sites I still have other interests. On a sports blog I might encounter strong conservatives and we might end up engaged in a political debate in the message board. His theory works on the assumption that people only have one specific interest, not that they have a plurality of interests that intersect and cause a meeting of different points of view.

Sunstein worries that eventually society will fragment to the point that becomes decentralized. He reacts skeptically to the notion that these fragments will work as a network. Sunstein sees an extreme where there are more “echo chambers” than actual conversations. He acknowledges that “the current situation is hardly worse than what preceded it; on the contrary, it is much better, if only because of the increase in the number and range of the voices.” However, he seems more concerned with presenting an apocalyptic version of the internet where everyone is an extremist or becoming an extremist.

I think however, Sunstein accurately notes our responsibilities as citizens. He maintains that an informed citizen is most important to a democracy. He points to the growing number of options and says it is very easy to only pick those that agree with the options that are most comfortable. However, it is important for citizens to try to seek out other options to reach informed decisions.

A blog is created every 2.2 seconds as of present day. Finding a blog is extremely simple because there are millions of blogs about anything and everything. Blogs can contain a lot of information as it assembles sources from many different sources, like a general-interest intermediary. But some blogs can filter their sources that only support their point of view, which goes back to the information cocoon as it falls back into the echo chamber. Unfortunately then, bloggers are supporting their own biases. Another problem that arises in the blogosphere is the blogger’s credibility. When a blogger does not have much credibility they are unlikely to object to exaggerations and falsehoods that appeal to the prejudices of their target audiences (143). I believe blogs should always study the opposite point-of-view to eliminate such huge biases. Blogs, like people living in a heterogeneous society should be fair-minded in the ways they present themselves and their points of view.

Here Comes Everybody Part 2

In the second part of his book, Shirky parallels personal motivation and collaborative production through social tools such as Wikipedia, Twitter, and Facebook. Wikipedia illustrates the combination of desire to inform others and a willingness to work cohesively to create said social forum. The advent of Wikipedia allowed for others to work on a "shared writing effort without needing formal management or process"(111). Every Wikipedia page, being the sum of progressive changes and alterations on specific subjects. Furthermore, Wikipedia highlights major themes in social tools such as software and community concerns. Since there is not one designated person responsible for managing information, researching and editing have been constant for five years and the added non profit aspect of these social tools allows for contributors to equally play a role in its development.
   

Shirky further asserts that anything that increases ability to share information increases our freedom to pursue goals, therefore assuming that everyone would contribute. However, this is not the case as Shirky illustrates the power law which shows that there is an imbalance in contributions and participation. Less readers creates loose conversation within smaller audiences. Shirky also notes specific reasons that writers contribute to social tools: to give random knowledge, vanity, and make a meaningful contribution by doing a good thing (132). These reasons also give explain why these social tools are not vandalized and can withstand disagreement. Additionally, the notion of love as a driving source for tools such as Wikipedia. Love propels tools such as Wikipedia and provides for its improvement and defense. Shirky makes a clear distinction of love as well, as he states that love is not what it used to be, now love is "less squishy and less private".


Collaborative action and institutional challenges have allowed for collaborations such as Wikipedia, Twitter and Facebook to challenge bigger corporations and in some instances government. In the wake of the priest scandal, the internet was readily available to spread more information only after the scandal had initially began. This variation in knowledge between 1992 and 2002 showed that the internet lent itself as a new form of sharing. Bloggers and internet reports were readily available to challenge and maintain the story in the face of the public in contrast to newspaper clippings. This gave way to group formations that allowed for " easier and wider dissemination of information " (151). Social tools removed barriers that were present in disseminating this information; the locality of information and barriers to group reaction. By working together in groups, people were able to extend the reaction and result of the scandals and challenge the way the Church regulated information to the public.

As a result of bigger audiences and availability of information- people have incorporated tools meant for fast communication in lieu of traditional forms of interaction. Text messaging changes definitive plans in society as people are able to change notice through of ease of communication. In his airlines example, people were able to make progress only after calling the owner of the airlines and demanding the gate opened after 7 hours of waiting on board. With telephones, people are able to stop traveling for communication and assume that these tools are actually good substitutes for travel. Shirky further concludes that people must make distinctions between positive forms of social awareness such as alcoholics anonymous and pro-ana websites. Although both create forums for groups gathering on a specific cause, it is obvious that most approval will go to the alcoholic anonymous. Overall, Shirky highlights the way organization through social tools has not only revolutionized how society is affected by daily issues but also the level that it organizes individuals with each other.


Shirky explains that one of the most important factors to the success of a network, is the concept of a Small World.  The key components to a Small World is that there are densely connected small groups and sparsely connected large groups.  This means that in a small group of people, everyone knows everyone else but there are few connections between a small group and the next small group. The advantages of this network, are that information can more easily be transmitted along large groups because the people connecting the clusters of people will quickly pass along the information to all clusters.  Each cluster is usually drawn together over a similar interest so they will disperse the information among themselves. This system combines bridging capital, how information travels across groups, and bonding capital, the amount of trust you place in people in your group.

Another key component to the success of organizations is the amount of failure.  Shirky brings up the example of Meetup, which he claims succeeds because of how many groups fail to materialize.  This is because Meetup has set such a low barrier to participation that many people are willing to try and fail which increases the likelihood of a group succeeding as opposed to an organization that has a high barrier to participation which decreases the likelihood people will try out the service or organization.  This logic holds true for any other free service available such as Flickr, blogs, and mailing lists.  One of the most successful forms of this failure is open source software.  As Shirky points out, on Sourceforge, a leading open source download hub, the leading downloaded software gets millions of downloads cumulatively and tens of thousands in one day.  However, at the 95^th percentile, the software getting downloaded is only around one thousand cumulative downloads and at the 75^th percentile, the software never gets downloaded.  This exemplifies the 80/20 power law distribution which essentially means 20% of anything in a network gets 80% of the resources.  So 20% of the software on Sourceforge gets 80% of the downloads.  This is important organizing groups according to the “publish-then-filter” since people can try a group for anything, and then filter out the failed ones.   In previous methods of software development and organizing though, companies and organizers had to ignore people who would only be casually involved because they were dealing with limited resources and could only pursue the 80% of successful products.  However, with such a low cost to online organizing and developing open-source software, today all 100% of the successful products can be made available.

Shirky sums up the success of a group into three aspects, the promise, tool, and bargain.  The promise is the key to attracting new people to your organization.  Organizations have to promise something that will interest people and then also set the barrier to participation low enough to lure people into joining.  The tool is important because not every social tool can fit in every situation.  For example, Twitter could not have organized the airline protest and blogging would not have been effective for the Egyptian prodemocracy activists.  Each situation has a good fit for each tool and finding the best tool for your group is crucial to its success.  Finally, the bargain is necessary because it will keep a person engaged.  The bargain is what the person receives and contributes to the community.  For example, in a wiki, the bargain is you can edit any article, and any person can edit your article.  While not all bargains are this simple, they are the final component in building a successful group with social tools.  However, finding the right combination of these elements is very difficult which is why many groups fail but those few that can find the right combination succeed overwhelmingly.

Shirky concludes with a look to the future of social tools.  As new technologies and tools are constantly developed, the patterns under which they operate will continue to change.  It’s impossible to tell what the next new technology is but it’s certain to affect the way people live their lives and how communities and organizations operate.  However, Shirky expects young people to continue to play a role in our society adopting these technologies since we are more likely to try new things but eventually these tools are adopted by society as a whole.

Here Comes Everybody, Part 1

Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody, focuses on one main question: How are new social tools changing the power of group action? Shirky starts off by providing an example of the power of group action when given the right tools. A woman, Ivanna, loses her phone in taxi, and it ends up in the hands of Sasha, who refuses to give it back. Because of new social tools that allow groups to more easily self-assemble, Ivanna’s friend was able to get millions of people on their side, which led to the arrest of Sasha and the return of the phone. Shirky argues that new social tools have “radically altered the old limits on the size, sophistication, and scope of the unsupervised effort” (21). This example also shows how the internet has increased the likelihood of being scrutinized in public. The main point is: changing the way we communicate and the way groups get things done changes society (17).

Shirky then uses the example of the Coney Island Mermaid Parade to demonstrate how new social tools (Flickr in this case) can now achieve things that were previously out of reach for traditional organization because they lay under the Coasean floor (the cost of management > profit margin). For the first time, attendees were able to form a group and share their pictures because cost of coordinating group action has been lowered. This changes the traditional “Gather, then share” to “Share, then Gather.” One key point is that “Aggregations of anything from atoms to people exhibit complex behavior that cannot be predicted by observing the component parts” (28). How might this relate to our blogs?

In the next chapter, Shirky discusses the mass amateurization of publishing. He claims that traditionally, professionals were gatekeepers who provided and controlled access to information (57). Now that anyone can publish on blogs, media is not as much controlled by professionals, and the limitations in having a small number of traditional press outlets are undone (65). To explain this, Shirky gives us the example of a congressman whose racist quote could not be covered by the traditional press, but once covered by bloggers, forcing the congressman into an apology, the traditional press could cover the apology, providing a way for them to show the racist quote without it being “old news” (61). One important question that Shirky brings up is "who should enjoy journalistic privilege?" How do we include journalistic bloggers, without including so many people that journalistic privilege becomes unprofitable?

Shirky then discusses the “Publish, then filter” aspect of blogging and other new social tools. Traditionally, to get something published, someone would have to think it was worth publishing. Now, you can publish anything, and then people will decide if it is good. How does this benefit/hinder our experience as bloggers? Shirky argues that there is no clear point when a blog stops being a diary and starts being a media outlet. Do you agree with this? He compares the audience to a community, and says that it is “as if your phone could turn into a radio station at the turn of a knob” (89).

One other key point from this section is that change comes when the invention of a tool has been around long enough that it is ubiquitous. Now that these new social tools that allow social groups to easily and cheaply self-assemble are becoming ubiquitous for young users, we are going to see some big changes in the way our society functions very soon (108).

Vote for us, or forever regret it

The history, analysis, theory and practice of blogging: The University of Maryland's ENGL488B

Our rationale behind this title was pretty straightforward - we're describing the class and the blog. We still have the class call number and reppin' Maryland, but at the same time, we're trying to encapsulate the class in one quick-hitter description.

Could we have gone longer and more descriptive? Sure. But no one would read that garbage. As it is, we discussed, no one really reads taglines anyway unless they're assigned something for a blogging class having to do with taglines (...ahem). Of the dozens of blogs I read, I don't think I could tell you one of their taglines. It's a non-vital part of a blog, and the longer it is, the more forgettable. So vote for ours, or suffer a longer, more boring tagline forever (or at least the next few months).

-Ethan and Amina

Unstoppable Blogs Here

Seriously guys, this tag line is hot sh*t.

Sure, the University spent $700 million to come up with a sub-par slogan, but that doesn't mean we should abandon all support! By attending this school, we pledge allegiance to the all mighty Terrapin. Even if we waste valuable funding on some hipster marketing firm.

When you look at the cost associated with the slogan, "Unstoppable Blogs Here" is by far the most expensive tag line any of us could come up with. It would be a shame if we didn't honor our lost dollars.

Vote!

FEAR THE BLOGGER!

The University of Maryland's class dedicated to analyzing, participating and immersing in the world of blogging and studying blog culture.English 488B will offer students a chance to break away from the traditional forms of writing. You will begin your own blog, engage in blog theorization, tracking and history in a structured open environment. Professor Lindemann anticipates class & web participation as we examine and establish blogs.

Lia Azucena and Tiava Morris

Vote For This One

Enter the world of blogging and join us as Prof. Marilee Lindemann leads the students of English 488B at the University of Maryland through an introduction to blogging and the impact of blogs in today's digital society.

Why should you vote for our tagline? Well for one, if you vote for our tagline, we won't have to read through the other posts and can spend more time learning in class. Another good reason? This tagline sums up everything from our current tagline but does it in an easier to read format and includes more information about the class. It's also a lot more welcoming because it invites the reader to participate by joining us and entering our world. Finally, I'd really like it if you voted for our tagline. That'd be pretty cool if we won.

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.”

"Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending." (Maria Robinson) Blogosphere and Prof. Lindemann will teach the craft and history of the ever evolving, never ending blog - writing that constantly adapts and changes, allowing a whole new world of writing to be explored, a class that will never truly have an ending.

I really thought it was cool when we discussed the fact that blogs really never end, there is always an opportunity for a new post that can change plenty of ideas. Even so we can never go back and change our first posts, they have already inspired, angered, etc. the readers and we can't "start a new beginning." I thought this was a cool quote that really shows the true strength of the "new age" of blog writing. Of course we must also give Prof. Lindemann credit for helping us learn how to blog and to learn the history behind these powerful tools. I also think it is really awesome that even when class ends, our blogs will all still exist (at least for the most part) and then it is truly possible to say that we will all really take something from this class and keep it with us (as cliche as that sounds).

John Proctor

Vote. Or at least consider it.

20 Students. 21 Blogs. Watch the University of Maryland's best and brightest embark on a journey through the world of blogging. 

Let's be honest, we could write almost anything and make it more exciting than the first description. This proposal aims at catching the eye and peaking an interest of someone stumbling across our class blog. Despite a little exaggeration in complimenting ourselves, this tagline establishes an identity.We're approaching this journey as a class, bouncing ideas off of each other and becoming better bloggers in a public forum. This class offers a unique opportunity to combine our individual efforts and abilities in writing our own blogs with the benefits of maintaining this single blog as a class. All of the taglines submitted are really good so far, and we're looking forward to reading the rest. 

Let us know what you think. 

Max Tartar

Terp Bloggers!

This is Terp blogging at its best. Follow University of Maryland students as they explore the evolving world of the blogosphere – in its roots, practice, and future – with Professor Marilee Lindemann at the helm.

I wanted to make my subheader concise and engaging. What are we: a terp class blog! It encompasses our identity as a class as well as gives information about the course without overwhelming the reader. Once they scroll down the sidebar or see our postings they’ll get a more in depth understanding of what we’re doing, but a tagline needs to be short. In fact, I’d almost like it to be shorter. I like the word “follow” – it’s blog lingo that other bloggers will recognize. I chose not to include the course name because it is only inclusive to UMD students. Those outside the Maryland community will have no idea what ENGL488B stands for. This tagline includes the core workings of this blog.

If you don’t vote for this tag, you’re saying you love Duke.

Submitted by Alison Northridge