[1/20/2012 10:37:41 AM] *** Rebecca Richards added austin.bly89, bartzy20, codykragness, dane.price, Jessica Moes, fleming223911, Jon Foss, jeffgwarren, kastefely, oooxxxxxzzzz, smshahbazi, taylor.orr14, tckyrola ***

[1/20/2012 10:37:46 AM] Rebecca Richards: Good morning everyone!

[1/20/2012 10:37:53 AM] jeffgwarren: morning

[1/20/2012 10:37:54 AM] *** Rebecca Richards added josh.michalec ***

[1/20/2012 10:37:58 AM] bartzy20: heeey

[1/20/2012 10:38:04 AM] lattahockey19: hi :)

[1/20/2012 10:38:07 AM] codykragness: good morning

[1/20/2012 10:38:10 AM] Shahriar Shahbazi: Hello

[1/20/2012 10:38:12 AM] tckyrola: Morning

[1/20/2012 10:38:18 AM] austin.bly89: gm

[1/20/2012 10:38:20 AM] Rebecca Richards: We'll get started in just a couple of minutes. Waiting on a few more students.

[1/20/2012 10:38:21 AM] Jessica Moes: Hey Hey Hey

[1/20/2012 10:38:24 AM] oooxxxxxzzzz: hello how are things!

[1/20/2012 10:38:29 AM] bartzy20: wassup Austin, saw you last night

[1/20/2012 10:38:33 AM] fleming223911: morning!

[1/20/2012 10:38:44 AM] Kathleen Stefely: good morning :)

[1/20/2012 10:39:18 AM] austin.bly89: haha, yeah good morning to you too Andy

[1/20/2012 10:39:36 AM] *** Rebecca Richards added Joseph Pesta, Katherine Fitzgerald, sky.montour ***

[1/20/2012 10:41:25 AM] *** Rebecca Richards added jamessponsel ***

[1/20/2012 10:41:30 AM] *** Rebecca Richards added bassfelc ***

[1/20/2012 10:41:36 AM] bartzy20: Have a good rest of your night? @Austin

[1/20/2012 10:41:45 AM] Rebecca Richards: Ok, it's 10:40, so we'll get started. Welcome, once again, to Friday morning at Skype class. I hope that you are all comfortable in your surroundings, complete with warm beverage, comfy clothing, and relaxed reading/viewing posture.

[1/20/2012 10:42:11 AM] Rebecca Richards: Today is going to be massively different from our last online class for two reasons.

[1/20/2012 10:42:24 AM] Rebecca Richards: First, you are going to spend about half of class time watching a BBC documentary online. Secondly, our online discussion will be limited in terms of participation in order to ensure that we can get through today’s lessons and mitigate any cranial injury from excessive non-linear conversations.

[1/20/2012 10:42:27 AM] Rebecca Richards: :)

[1/20/2012 10:42:52 AM] Rebecca Richards: So first, we’ll begin with a brief discussion about the Jenkins’ readings for today. I have two thoughtful questions/prompts. I ask that you please only participate in one of the two prompts.

[1/20/2012 10:43:17 AM] Rebecca Richards: When you decide that a prompt discussion is for you, you are limited in contributing

[1/20/2012 10:43:24 AM] Rebecca Richards: 1) an opening remark,

[1/20/2012 10:43:36 AM] Rebecca Richards: 2) one question of clarification from someone else

[1/20/2012 10:43:45 AM] Rebecca Richards: 3) an answer from someone’s clarification question

[1/20/2012 10:44:03 AM] Rebecca Richards: (oops, that should be an answer "to" someone's...)

[1/20/2012 10:44:12 AM] Rebecca Richards: and 4) a emotive reply in terms of an emoticon or “I agree with RR” or a thumbs up. This means you can only have a total of 4 contributions. If for some reason, multiple participants ask you clarification questions, you can only respond to one (but you can emote to the others….) Does that make sense?

[1/20/2012 10:44:37 AM] Rebecca Richards: (smiles means you got it, frown means you don't)

[1/20/2012 10:44:43 AM] Taylor Orr: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:44 AM] fleming223911: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:44 AM] Kathleen Stefely: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:44 AM] Sky Montour: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:45 AM] Jessica Moes: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:46 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:47 AM] Kristen Latta: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:47 AM] tckyrola: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:47 AM] codykragness: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:48 AM] jeffgwarren: (happy)

[1/20/2012 10:44:49 AM] austin.bly89: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:52 AM] Josh Michalec: :D

[1/20/2012 10:44:55 AM] Jon Foss: :)

[1/20/2012 10:44:58 AM] bartzy20: :)

[1/20/2012 10:45:00 AM] Elliott Courchaine: 8-)

[1/20/2012 10:45:14 AM] Rebecca Richards: As you sit back and enjoy the conversation on the prompt you are not participating in, take note of how it feels to be excluded from participating, how the conversation proceeds without you, and any patterns of interaction/exchange that are of interest. You can learn a lot about your own online communication practice by observing that of others. This is not the time for a bathroom break.

[1/20/2012 10:45:15 AM] Shahriar Shahbazi: :)

[1/20/2012 10:45:33 AM] Joseph Pesta: :)

[1/20/2012 10:45:34 AM] Rebecca Richards: Ok. Here we go.

[1/20/2012 10:45:59 AM] Rebecca Richards: Jenkins argues that Photoshop, for example, has allowed people to democratize media by providing a means for creating powerful images to make public statements. But he also presents information supports that we circulate these “powerful images” in limited contexts because our cyberpractices and interactions are generally biased.

[1/20/2012 10:46:24 AM] Rebecca Richards: He reports (as do others) that we look for the information that reinforces our beliefs—that we live in cyber-echo chambers (248). What do you think about this topic? Do we silo ourselves in spite of the democratic potential of software (like Photoshop) or games like The Sims Online? Or do you think that this is a skewed view of what people are actually doing online and with democratic tools?

[1/20/2012 10:47:51 AM] jeffgwarren: I think that for the most part people seek out information that confirms what they believe and is in line with their ideologies. It takes an open minded and curious person to go beyond what they believe in search of opposing ideas.

[1/20/2012 10:47:57 AM] Kristen Latta: I think that though his argument has some valid points, that not all political statements through things like photoshop are unavoidable. Take facebook for instance, someone could easily post something that is not consistent with my political ideologies but I'm still going to see it

[1/20/2012 10:48:05 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: it is somewhat skewed, but Jenkins has a very valid point in saying that we don't fully use the software and games for in its entirety. We could be using photoshop to create masterpieces, but instead we're using it to make models skinnier and puting Bill CLinton with the Beatles

[1/20/2012 10:48:29 AM] tckyrola: I believe that there is a ton of confirmation bias going on online. The 'other side' of information is out there but we look for people and content with similar views to us because it means we have solidarity in our opinions and beliefs. However, I do think that it is possible for small, incremental shifts in opinion and exposure to 'the other' to occur, it is just more subversive than intentional. Even if other views are pushed to us that doesn't mean we are consuming them actively.

[1/20/2012 10:48:42 AM] austin.bly89: Absolutely, we silo ourselves. I mean, I'm pretty sure this is true of other media. We will watch news programs that most affirm our political views already. Just because it's there, doesn't mean we will use the information.

[1/20/2012 10:49:24 AM] Kristen Latta: @Jeff do you think that these people who go searching for opposing viewpoints are open minded or just looking for a way to indirectly strengthen their arguments?

[1/20/2012 10:49:35 AM] jeffgwarren: @AB I agree I have heard statistics than confirm what you said

[1/20/2012 10:49:38 AM] fleming223911: I think this is somewhat true. However, I think a key distinction between this is that we may see all types of materials that may or may not align with our beliefs. However, we selectively choose to investigate media that perpetuates our own individual beliefs and pass over the media that doesn't. I don't think it is an issue of not seein it, but instead an issue of choosing not to acknowlege it

[1/20/2012 10:50:04 AM] Jessica Moes: I think, that as modern as Jenkin's writing is, he is writing from at least 5 years ago. The overlap of Internet streams has revolutionized the way we are interacting with one another. While I would agree that we are not necessarily using these programs ourselves at their ultimate levels, someone is, and we are becoming more and more subjected to seeing the other side, just because of this overlap. While we may seek out only liberal viewpoints, comments on those viewpoints can take multiple political ideological forms. Facebook promotes the interaction of countless types of political opinions. The internet is not longer static.

[1/20/2012 10:50:27 AM] bartzy20: I agree with Jenkins, the example that comes to me is that people who are generally politically liberal or conservative will watch and read publications that assert their views. The same can be said about photoshop, it is used in a biased way. If someone is passionate about exposing the flaws of photoshop through modeling, they are going to use the resource of photoshop to re-affirm their views and try to get others to think how they do.

[1/20/2012 10:50:43 AM] jeffgwarren: @KL I don't think I could answer that correctly, because I don't think it's so black and white.

[1/20/2012 10:50:53 AM] James Quincy Sponsel: While photoshop does allow us to create our own media, I am not sure where Jenkins is getting his "powerful images" from. Even the examples he uses in the book seem like weak attempts at political humor.

[1/20/2012 10:51:13 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @Sarah which media do we choose to see and how do we decide on which one we're viewing and which one we're ignoring?

[1/20/2012 10:52:00 AM] fleming223911: @James. What would you quantify as powerful. Would you agree that we are constantly bombarded by media that we easily pass over "so called powerful" information?

[1/20/2012 10:52:14 AM] tckyrola: @eskamoes, the internet is not static at all, but that doesn't mean that we accept the opposing views. They exist and are prevalent but it is incredibly easy to ignore or ridicule those with even slightly oppositional views. Wouldn't think mean that there is a lack of democratization? We're undermining the system by seeking out what we already know or want to know.

[1/20/2012 10:52:34 AM] austin.bly89: @James, what a very politically heated tag, like "Jerusalem"? You're going to skim over the images that don't support your views... Would that be a better example?

[1/20/2012 10:54:32 AM] fleming223911: @Katherine. I like when jenkins talks about young people becoming informed through late night shows such as Leno. Jenkins said that young people are more likely to go and look for more information after hearing news from this source. Thats how I get a lot of information. I hear about it, and it makes me want to investigate it further for myself. However, if something doesn't align with my views I don't care enough to investigate it. Does that make sense?

[1/20/2012 10:55:19 AM] Elliott Courchaine: @Austin I disagree in a sense. I feel that if I was arguing and looking up material to support my opinion and views on Jerusalem I would look for the information that would reinforce my own views and support my arguments. I think that sometimes it is easier to disprove something and find a wrong about a topic if it's more personal i am going to stick with facts and information that is supporting my side of the argument.

[1/20/2012 10:55:24 AM] bartzy20: @Tyler very good point, by seeking out what we alreay know or wantto know we our limiting our societal growth. I think that by ignoring slightly oppositional views of our own is really hurting society. A lot of people are stubborn and set on what they believe and are not open to change, the example of politics comes to my mind again and I'm sure there are many other modern day examples.

[1/20/2012 10:55:26 AM] jeffgwarren: @ SF (nod)

[1/20/2012 10:55:36 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @Sarah yes that makes a lot of sense now, and I agree with that!

[1/20/2012 10:56:07 AM] James Quincy Sponsel: @Sarah. I wouldn't say that media has especially powerful messages either. My issue with photoshop is that it is designed to promote simple doctoring of images. The tools the program it provides only allows one to tinker with images. If anything, a plain camera and memory card is a better device for democratic knowledge than photoshop.

[1/20/2012 10:56:19 AM] Elliott Courchaine: @James wait whoops I think I must of misread your comment I meant I agree before my originial response. I thought you said the opposite.

[1/20/2012 10:56:30 AM] fleming223911: @James :)

[1/20/2012 10:56:32 AM] Jessica Moes: @TK While I understand what you are saying, I also think about the power of the majority. It's a psychological fact that if you are in a group and all of the group is seeming doing one thing, you will also jump on the bandwagon, despite whether or not you believe it is correct. The internet has taken this principle and expanded it. For example, I call to mind this video that circulated around my news feed about a week ago about loving Jesus and hating the church. As it became more and more popularly circulated, more and more people posted it. A lot of people posting it were people that I KNOW don't have those strong religious ideologies, or people that I KNOW are they type to support the church. They were just posting the video to seem "in the know" or "part of the popular ideal", or so I assume. Behavior like that is becoming much more prevalent.

[1/20/2012 10:56:40 AM] Rebecca Richards: Last comments?

[1/20/2012 10:56:55 AM] tckyrola: @Andrew, funnily enough perhaps that is going on in this very discussion- we all read the same thing and potentially have similar politcal views and came to simliar conclustions. Now we're all saying almost the same thing :)

[1/20/2012 10:56:56 AM] Kristen Latta: @jeff good point

[1/20/2012 10:57:08 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @tyler (y)

[1/20/2012 10:57:35 AM] bartzy20: The question is how can this change? People are stubborn and will stick to their views, it's not like we can make them investigate or watch/read something

[1/20/2012 10:57:39 AM] Rebecca Richards: New topic (for the rest of you who didn't participate in the previous conversation)

[1/20/2012 10:58:01 AM] Rebecca Richards: In his conclusion, Jenkins says that the concept of the “ideal, informed citizen” is a fantasy now because “there is simply too much for any individual to know” (269). Do you agree with this assessment and his desire to conceptualize a “monitoring citizen” in the place of the “informed citizen”? Or do you find this to be a cop out for the rigors of knowing or keeping oneself “informed”?

[1/20/2012 10:59:17 AM] James Quincy Sponsel: @richards, can we still continue the other discussion?

[1/20/2012 10:59:31 AM] Sky Montour: @everyone, what implies an informed citizen? What amount of knowledge must someone have in order to be considered informed?

[1/20/2012 10:59:42 AM] Rebecca Richards: @James-- yes, on Monday :)

[1/20/2012 11:00:12 AM] Josh Michalec: I think it is definitely harder to be an informed person today, but that really isn't an excuse to not be current on the more important things. People are often uninformed about issues they really should have a bigger vested interest in, like SOPA for instance. Maybe my idea of what should be an informed person is closer to a "monitoring" person, however it is important to have that base knowledge and to understand what is going on around you.

[1/20/2012 11:00:15 AM] Rebecca Richards: @James--this is chatting with strict boundaries. I'm sorry

[1/20/2012 11:00:17 AM] Taylor Orr: I guess I agree with Jenkins because although there is the potential to be completely, perfectly informed, this is unrealistic. In addition, if we tie this in with the first question, people are unlikely to want to spend the time it takes to completely understand both sides to a topic anyway.

[1/20/2012 11:00:20 AM] codykragness: Cant everyone become a pretty informed citizen now days just by googling something?

[1/20/2012 11:01:09 AM] Shahriar Shahbazi: Even a monitoring citizen must be informed enough on the subject of politics to know when something has changed. I don't think you can go fully to either side. It would be good if people would both seek to be informed, but also ready to respond to changes in the political climate.

[1/20/2012 11:01:22 AM] Sky Montour: @cody, in theory, that would work. But with how mich there is to be informed on, you wouldn't get out much.

[1/20/2012 11:01:29 AM] Taylor Orr: @cody Wouldn't that have to depend on our idea of what informed is? You could easily Google something, but that doesn't mean you know all all viewpoints

[1/20/2012 11:01:56 AM] Josh Michalec: @Taylor but wouldn't you agree that the majority of people don't even try to be moderately informed? I'm more inclined to believe the issue lies in the laziness of many people and the fact that a lot of people don't care about what happens outside of their little bubble (self-importance is a huge issue..)

[1/20/2012 11:02:08 AM] Adrian Rossing: i think the comments he includes in his conclusion are very true. even in the past, it was not possible to be the "ideal, informed citizen" becasue it was not possible to really be well learned on all of the issues presented on the news, in the newspaper, etc. today i believe that the lines are even blurier and there are more outlets to become informed with. With the plethora of news and information there is to know, it is virtually impossible to even know something about everything. But with the internet infront of us it changes the parameters. What is considered to be informed, today. taking oput the smart phone and googling something or actually knowing it without the props we use.

[1/20/2012 11:03:16 AM] Josh Michalec: (y)

[1/20/2012 11:03:25 AM] Taylor Orr: @JM Yea, you have a point. As a whole we really look for quick, simple answers and do not work hard to stay even moderately informed

[1/20/2012 11:03:28 AM] codykragness: @Sky yea i suppose there is quite a bit of stuff out there to be informed... And new things are popping up all the time and changing, so i dont know if someone can actually ever be fully informed. but how much does one need to know to be considered informed?

[1/20/2012 11:03:39 AM] Sky Montour: @josh, That's a good point. The real issue isn't that there is too much information to know, but rather that it's just too much work to learn it.

[1/20/2012 11:03:41 AM] Elliott Courchaine: I feel that it's changing over to a more monitored citizen, with different restrictions and boundries on the internet. But I feel that we are still an informed citizen and are still learning things and picking up with current events even if we are not going out searching for that specific topic.

[1/20/2012 11:03:53 AM] Josh Michalec: @Sky (y)

[1/20/2012 11:03:58 AM] Rebecca Richards: Final thoughts?

[1/20/2012 11:03:58 AM] Jon Foss: Convergence culture represents a shift in the ways we think about our relations to the media, that we are making that shift first through our relations with popular culture, but the skills we acquire through play may have implications for how we learn, work, participate in the political process, and connect with other people. Convergence culture has created such a vast amount of knowledge that there is certainly too much for any individual to know. I agree with Jenkins. The demands to stay "informed" are far too great for any single person to do and therefore a monitoring citizen is not a cop out for an informed citizen

[1/20/2012 11:04:10 AM] Adrian Rossing: @taylor i think that is one of the big problems with society today. we are not willing to become informed.

[1/20/2012 11:04:28 AM] Taylor Orr: @AR :) to both of your last 2 comments

[1/20/2012 11:04:31 AM] Joseph Pesta: (y) @everyone

[1/20/2012 11:04:42 AM] Rebecca Richards: I hope you go back and read your peers' interpretations and ideas about these two topics before class on Monday

[1/20/2012 11:04:53 AM] Rebecca Richards: We'll continue these discussions f2f on Monday

[1/20/2012 11:05:16 AM] Rebecca Richards: But I wanted to get some of the positions on the topic of democracy and new media articulated before we watch something

[1/20/2012 11:05:32 AM] Elliott Courchaine: @bass I agree I think our society really has put a shield up and focuses on really the issues of ourselves or things going in our lives, instead of trying to get informed about bigger important things.

[1/20/2012 11:05:39 AM] Rebecca Richards: Since this last section of the Jenkins text is all about democracy and citizenship, and next week we are going to explore “social media” like Facebook, I thought we would transition into our conversations/readings/activities by watching the BBC documentary: How Facebook Changed the World: The Arab Spring. The best streaming quality of the episode is available on YouTube, but that means that the hour long report is broken into fifteen minute bits.

[1/20/2012 11:05:47 AM] Rebecca Richards: I will send the links to all four bits in just one second. What I would ask you to do is this:

[1/20/2012 11:06:04 AM] Rebecca Richards: 1. Watch all four segments 2. Take notes on how technology is strategically employed or not employed. 3. Consider the title of the series. Is it effective and/or accurate?

[1/20/2012 11:06:34 AM] Rebecca Richards: When you have finished all segments, we will come back and have a brief discussion that will be carried over into Monday’s class. Please report back to the chat room no later than 12:15. Our discussion, upon return, will have different parameters than our Jenkins discussion—everyone will be required to participate. So come back! Come back!

[1/20/2012 11:06:48 AM] Rebecca Richards: Ok here are the links, please be warned that some of the images are deeply unsettling due to the violent nature of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

[1/20/2012 11:06:58 AM] Rebecca Richards: a. Part 1: b. Part 2: c. Part 3: d. Part 4:

[1/20/2012 11:07:09 AM] Rebecca Richards: Everyone good? Smiles or frowns...

[1/20/2012 11:07:13 AM] tckyrola: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:15 AM] Jessica Moes: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:15 AM] codykragness: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:17 AM] Katherine Fitzgerald: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:18 AM] Taylor Orr: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:18 AM] Kathleen Stefely: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:19 AM] Joseph Pesta: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:22 AM] jeffgwarren: (nod)

[1/20/2012 11:07:23 AM] bartzy20: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:23 AM] Shahriar Shahbazi: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:25 AM] Adrian Rossing: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:27 AM] Josh Michalec: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:28 AM] Elliott Courchaine: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:28 AM] James Quincy Sponsel: : )

[1/20/2012 11:07:30 AM] Kristen Latta: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:35 AM] austin.bly89: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:35 AM] Sky Montour: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:36 AM] Jon Foss: :)

[1/20/2012 11:07:37 AM] Rebecca Richards: "see" you in about an hour... I'll be here if you need something

[1/20/2012 11:07:47 AM] Josh Michalec: Now I have to scroll up for links :( haha

[1/20/2012 11:08:04 AM] Rebecca Richards: @Josh, so sorry :'(

[1/20/2012 11:08:09 AM] Adrian Rossing: a. Part 1: b. Part 2: c. Part 3: d. Part 4:

[1/20/2012 11:08:15 AM] Josh Michalec: :)

[1/20/2012 11:08:17 AM] Rebecca Richards: @Adrian, Thanks!

[1/20/2012 12:06:41 PM] Josh Michalec: good stuff

[1/20/2012 12:07:14 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Josh-- Glad you enjoyed it.

[1/20/2012 12:07:26 PM] Jessica Moes: Done also

[1/20/2012 12:07:32 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: same here

[1/20/2012 12:07:34 PM] codykragness: just finished

[1/20/2012 12:07:35 PM] Elliott Courchaine: crazy documentary!

[1/20/2012 12:07:51 PM] bartzy20: Seriously that was insane

[1/20/2012 12:07:57 PM] Adrian Rossing: @elliot so true

[1/20/2012 12:08:09 PM] Rebecca Richards: Why is it "Insane" or "crazy"?

[1/20/2012 12:08:14 PM] Rebecca Richards: :)

[1/20/2012 12:08:15 PM] Kristen Latta: wow

[1/20/2012 12:08:59 PM] bartzy20: I'm in awe by 1) the bravery and 2) How quickly this was able to happen in a matter of days/weeks a government is overthrown

[1/20/2012 12:09:03 PM] Josh Michalec: Foss and I were just talking about how it was so awesome/odd to see such a wide range of ages in the protests, because they are protesting something that effects everyone, not just a certain group

[1/20/2012 12:09:12 PM] Adrian Rossing: moving and empowering.. i followed it last year when it was happening, but to hear all the first hand thoughts is helpful

[1/20/2012 12:09:18 PM] Elliott Courchaine: It's really exciting to see the power of the people in that corrupt country

[1/20/2012 12:09:34 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Josh and Andy... gotcha... I thought you thought something was literally "crazy"

[1/20/2012 12:09:46 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I feel kind of guilty now that I didn't really know that much about this before today... !

[1/20/2012 12:09:49 PM] Jessica Moes: I just am consistently being inspired by the power of the majority finally taking control.

[1/20/2012 12:09:50 PM] codykragness: i heard about the riots that were happening, but never knew why or what was going on, so it was really interesting to see what happened

[1/20/2012 12:09:58 PM] Jon Foss: how powerful of a tool the Internet and mobile phones were, and not only how far the reached but the extent of people they reached

[1/20/2012 12:10:12 PM] Josh Michalec: @Foss exactly

[1/20/2012 12:10:38 PM] Kristen Latta: @ EC I feel the same way!

[1/20/2012 12:10:40 PM] Sarah Fleming: All done without weapons of the protestors... although could you argue the Internet served as the most important weapon of all?

[1/20/2012 12:11:13 PM] Rebecca Richards: Hold these great ideas... and we'll give everyone else five more minutes to join us

[1/20/2012 12:11:20 PM] bartzy20: @Cody same here

[1/20/2012 12:11:22 PM] Jon Foss: @ sarah, good point. The internet and phones were the weapon to spread the message

[1/20/2012 12:11:23 PM] Rebecca Richards: :)

[1/20/2012 12:12:37 PM] bartzy20: Think how positive a tool the Internet was in this situation, but on the flip side could the Internet be a tool to potentially some day do the opposite? As in the wrong kind of people ie terrorist using the internet to organize something evil...

[1/20/2012 12:13:16 PM] Elliott Courchaine: @ andy yeah I agree. we kind of see that in a way when we were talking about white supremacy

[1/20/2012 12:13:39 PM] bartzy20: The internet has scary potential

[1/20/2012 12:14:11 PM] Sarah Fleming: with obviously very little ability to control it or censor information

[1/20/2012 12:14:12 PM] Jon Foss: it is really interesting how we see facebook as this social network tool...while they used it to mobilize masses in protest.

[1/20/2012 12:14:13 PM] Elliott Courchaine: It was interesting to see what happened when the gov shut down the internet. they had a backup plan and it almost worked better to get everyone out and about

[1/20/2012 12:14:51 PM] Jon Foss: getting the cabbies to spread the idea was a cool idea

[1/20/2012 12:15:06 PM] Rebecca Richards: Ok, I have 12:15 on my computer... just to check in, are Dane, Shahr, Taylor, Sky, Adrian, Austin, Jeff, Tyler, Kathleen, and Katherine back? Shoot a smiley if you're here...

[1/20/2012 12:15:12 PM] codykragness: @jon i was just about to say that haha

[1/20/2012 12:15:15 PM] Josh Michalec: @Elliot ya the government didn't really think that through

[1/20/2012 12:15:20 PM] Adrian Rossing: im here

[1/20/2012 12:15:20 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: Yep

[1/20/2012 12:15:26 PM] Elliott Courchaine: :)

[1/20/2012 12:15:31 PM] tckyrola: :) Here

[1/20/2012 12:15:34 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: :)

[1/20/2012 12:15:34 PM] jeffgwarren: (nod)

[1/20/2012 12:15:45 PM] Kathleen Stefely: :)

[1/20/2012 12:15:58 PM] Joseph Pesta: :)

[1/20/2012 12:16:21 PM] Sky Montour: :)

[1/20/2012 12:16:42 PM] Rebecca Richards: Still looking for: Dane, Taylor, Katherine, and Austin...

[1/20/2012 12:16:50 PM] Taylor Orr: :)

[1/20/2012 12:17:05 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: :)

[1/20/2012 12:17:09 PM] Dane Price: :)

[1/20/2012 12:17:17 PM] austin.bly89: :)

[1/20/2012 12:17:25 PM] Rebecca Richards: Great! We're all back

[1/20/2012 12:17:47 PM] Rebecca Richards: Ok, so this time, we'll just have everyone (yikes!) respond to these questions...

[1/20/2012 12:17:52 PM] Rebecca Richards: no limits...

[1/20/2012 12:17:55 PM] Josh Michalec: uh oh

[1/20/2012 12:17:57 PM] Rebecca Richards: BUT

[1/20/2012 12:18:04 PM] Jon Foss: FFA

[1/20/2012 12:18:14 PM] Rebecca Richards: Try to give a thoughtful opening statement, and wait for others to respond before we try to develop a conversation.

[1/20/2012 12:18:34 PM] Rebecca Richards: So here's the question.

[1/20/2012 12:18:46 PM] Rebecca Richards: and let's start with just a brief "yes" or "no"

[1/20/2012 12:18:54 PM] Rebecca Richards: Did FaceBook change the world?

[1/20/2012 12:18:59 PM] Adrian Rossing: yes

[1/20/2012 12:18:59 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: yes

[1/20/2012 12:18:59 PM] bartzy20: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:03 PM] Kristen Latta: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:03 PM] Sarah Fleming: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:04 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: no

[1/20/2012 12:19:04 PM] tckyrola: Such black and whiteness...No

[1/20/2012 12:19:04 PM] Joseph Pesta: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:05 PM] jeffgwarren: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:07 PM] Taylor Orr: yeah

[1/20/2012 12:19:08 PM] codykragness: yea

[1/20/2012 12:19:09 PM] Sky Montour: no

[1/20/2012 12:19:09 PM] Kathleen Stefely: No

[1/20/2012 12:19:09 PM] Josh Michalec: yes (social networks did)

[1/20/2012 12:19:10 PM] austin.bly89: no

[1/20/2012 12:19:11 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:14 PM] Jessica Moes: influence? yes. Change? no

[1/20/2012 12:19:22 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @jessica, exactly.

[1/20/2012 12:19:28 PM] Jon Foss: yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:28 PM] Rebecca Richards: Ok, for those of you who wrote "no"

[1/20/2012 12:19:28 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @yes jessica

[1/20/2012 12:19:30 PM] Rebecca Richards: or something like that

[1/20/2012 12:19:32 PM] Elliott Courchaine: no facebook didn't but it was a tool to help

[1/20/2012 12:19:37 PM] Sarah Fleming: @jessica yes

[1/20/2012 12:19:51 PM] Rebecca Richards: Can you expound on who or what (singluar or plural) you credit for "changing the world"?

[1/20/2012 12:20:18 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I really credit the people of the country to changing the world. and the technology

[1/20/2012 12:20:21 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: the people using facebook changed the world. facebook was just a tool they used to do so.

[1/20/2012 12:20:21 PM] Kathleen Stefely: It wasn't just facebook that changed things... yes, the internet was a main platform for activism, but it was every form of communication that changed things

[1/20/2012 12:20:22 PM] Taylor Orr: I would say new media in general

[1/20/2012 12:20:27 PM] Sarah Fleming: The idea of the global village!

[1/20/2012 12:20:28 PM] Jessica Moes: My argument is that they didn't NEED the internet and Facebook to communicate. It certainly amped their cause and I think made it more possible to change something over a quick period of time, but they were most influential when the internet was shut down and they were actively getting involved in the streets.

[1/20/2012 12:20:28 PM] Taylor Orr: and people's cyberliteracy

[1/20/2012 12:20:37 PM] Jon Foss: The internet tipped the balance of power in their favor. Fear was an enemy. However the Internet was a powerful weapon...

[1/20/2012 12:20:38 PM] Sky Montour: Saying facebook changed the world is like saying guns fight wars. facebook was the weapon used by the people to gain victory, not the cause of the victory.

[1/20/2012 12:20:41 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: I would say the instantaneous nature of the internet.

[1/20/2012 12:20:42 PM] Josh Michalec: @James isn't that the same thing?

[1/20/2012 12:20:59 PM] Jessica Moes: @sky: YES

[1/20/2012 12:21:00 PM] Kristen Latta: @ taylor I agree with the cyberliteracy part

[1/20/2012 12:21:04 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @sky I agree with what you are saying!

[1/20/2012 12:21:08 PM] tckyrola: @RR, I think it's nice to think that tech and the internet/Facebook had a big hand in fueling these revolutions, but they've been building for as long as the dictators have been in power and the people have been oppressed. The Internet was useful, yes, it was a tool, but it didn't make it happen it accelerated the results, in my opinion.

[1/20/2012 12:21:23 PM] Kristen Latta: it took people who were vastly different but were on the same page and able to communicate through the internet

[1/20/2012 12:21:24 PM] austin.bly89: @Jess exactly. That's why things are still going on in Syria... Syrians haven't had the (relative) widespread internet access as Tunisians and Egyptians

[1/20/2012 12:21:29 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I think they did need technology like the mobile phones to capture the brutality and violence that was shared across globally.

[1/20/2012 12:21:40 PM] Taylor Orr: @JM they were only most influential after it was shut down because they had already gained a large following because of their internet and socail network use

[1/20/2012 12:21:41 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @josh. not exactly. the internet sped up the process of revolution, as jessica points out. revolution could have occurred without the internet in my opinion, just at a later date, and at a slower rate

[1/20/2012 12:21:42 PM] Jessica Moes: @Austin: but they still have the same motivation. It's just taking longer.

[1/20/2012 12:21:43 PM] Sarah Fleming: @Tyler. But demonstrations have happened before. But before the government had the ability to contain them and deny them

[1/20/2012 12:22:00 PM] Jon Foss: The video feeds etc. were the feul to the fire

[1/20/2012 12:22:04 PM] Josh Michalec: @sky but saying it didn't change the world is like saying cell phones didnt change the world. It has the power to unite people, and especially for what we just saw, that is important.

[1/20/2012 12:22:07 PM] Kathleen Stefely: @ Jessica... exactly. when government completely shut down internet connections to prevent communication and technology could no longer be a part of the activists’ plan, they used the voice of thousands of people protesting live, rather than on the Internet. The activists used the shutdown to their advantage… people went out on the streets to see what was happening because they couldn’t rely on their computers and cellphones. It started an even bigger movement.

[1/20/2012 12:22:10 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: But they used other ways instead of just Facebook, remember when they used the cab drivers to spread the word? Facebook aided, but wasn't the end all be all

[1/20/2012 12:22:18 PM] bartzy20: without use of facebook/social would other countries (Egypt) been as motivated to overthrown their government. Even in Tunisia without the spread of information the other cities would not have been able to see the riots. Being able to view the riots online really started this whole thing.

[1/20/2012 12:22:34 PM] austin.bly89: @Jess. Yes, the process is a lot more dragged out and a lot bloodier.

[1/20/2012 12:22:38 PM] jeffgwarren: @kathleen but the internet was the catalyst to get ensure people were on the same page

[1/20/2012 12:22:45 PM] Rebecca Richards: <interrupting... finish your comments quickly :-)>

[1/20/2012 12:22:51 PM] bartzy20: @Jeff exactly

[1/20/2012 12:22:51 PM] Joseph Pesta: @foss, yes, the social medias were needed to share the videos that showed the brutality that influenced the revolt

[1/20/2012 12:22:57 PM] tckyrola: @ Sarah, totally, I agree. Which is why I don't think that things like Facebook can be credited with changing the world for fueling the revolution, it's reductionist.

[1/20/2012 12:23:03 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I feel without the use of the technology it really would prolong the protests. I think people woudl still eventually fight out against the gov but the technology spread the word and spead up the protest to be accomplished in a few weeks

[1/20/2012 12:23:03 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: helpful, but not necessary

[1/20/2012 12:23:12 PM] Jessica Moes: I suppose that we could argue that Facebook is revolutionary in the sense that it speeds up the process and potentially causes less violence in the long run. I could see an argument for that.

[1/20/2012 12:23:17 PM] Adrian Rossing: @andy i agree with what you are saying. it is because of facebook that the events in the middle east occured like they did

[1/20/2012 12:23:20 PM] Sarah Fleming: @tyler. Ok yes.

[1/20/2012 12:23:25 PM] bartzy20: The quick spread of information got people on the same page and brought them together for a common cause

[1/20/2012 12:23:34 PM] Sarah Fleming: @andy :)

[1/20/2012 12:23:43 PM] Sky Montour: @Josh, i understand what you are saying, but it's not facebook or the phones that unite the people, facebook is just the medium used by the leaders of the protest. It was their words and their actions that won the battle.

[1/20/2012 12:23:56 PM] Kristen Latta: it took 28 days after 24 years :)

[1/20/2012 12:23:59 PM] Rebecca Richards: <interrupting>

[1/20/2012 12:23:59 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @jessica, speeding up a process can clearly be a good. Less death, quicker resolution, but it can arguably force a revolution that was not prepared or supposed to necessarily occur.

[1/20/2012 12:24:14 PM] Josh Michalec: @everyone I think the thing is that obviously the people changed everything and changed their own fates and realities. But, you cannot deny the responsibilities of the pieces that went into it for their contributions in "changing everything"

[1/20/2012 12:24:18 PM] Rebecca Richards: Ok, we'll debate this issue a bit more face-to-face Monday

[1/20/2012 12:24:20 PM] Jessica Moes: @James Excellent point. Is the internet causing irrationality?

[1/20/2012 12:24:22 PM] bartzy20: Take facebook and the internet out the equation. Would this (overthrowing of 2 gov't) have happenned?

[1/20/2012 12:24:34 PM] Jon Foss: It was the key to planning their protest/revolution. time, place, etc. To organize that many people in that amount of time is something that can only be done on the Internet. Oral communication is a lot slower

[1/20/2012 12:24:46 PM] jeffgwarren: @Foss i agree

[1/20/2012 12:24:47 PM] Sky Montour: @andy, hard to say obviously, but I think yes/

[1/20/2012 12:25:18 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @jessica. I wouldn't say causing irrationality, but it deffinately has the potential to allow people to act before thinking. Although I'm not saying that is the case in the Arab spring revolutions

[1/20/2012 12:25:18 PM] codykragness: @sky w/o the technology would they really have been as organized as they were?

[1/20/2012 12:25:22 PM] Rebecca Richards: But what lesson did you learn (as cyberliterate scholar) about the use of technology for social change? This is a personal question... meaning what were you personally struck by in terms of the use or non-use of technologies in these revolutions?

[1/20/2012 12:25:49 PM] austin.bly89: @Foss what about the revolution in the 60s in Cairo? I don't know how many people were there, but it had very similar political impacts in magnitude

[1/20/2012 12:26:03 PM] tckyrola: Well, Haraway would love the ironic and blasphemous nature of the people's use of technology...

[1/20/2012 12:26:11 PM] Kristen Latta: I underestimated facebook in its ability to promote such change. It made the reasons I use it seem miniscule and unimportant

[1/20/2012 12:26:12 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Tyler-- YES! She would!

[1/20/2012 12:26:19 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @Richards. I was surprised at how unprepared the governments of the countries were in regards to technology. They had no idea that facebook could be so powerful, and took it for granted that these were neutral techs.

[1/20/2012 12:26:24 PM] Josh Michalec: @RR I think it really opens your eyes to what the potential of things we just use to say happy birthday to people really is

[1/20/2012 12:26:24 PM] Sky Montour: @Cody, chances are no, but they would still have the same beliefs, and with a cause as powerful as the one they had, success was inevitable. Their tools made it faster, but I believe it would have happened regardless.

[1/20/2012 12:26:42 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: I was struck by how difficult it was for even an opressive regime to track these online interactions and to trace them back to individuals.

[1/20/2012 12:26:48 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Josh... yup!

[1/20/2012 12:26:59 PM] codykragness: The idea to use a social network to show the world what is going on and using it to promote a rebellion is very creative, and clearly worked well

[1/20/2012 12:27:07 PM] tckyrola: I agree though, it is a powerful tool and transcended the original use and meaning. Nobody was prepared for the new use the tool had and it was grealty beneficial when used properly (those revolting vs Mubarek's use, et cetera)

[1/20/2012 12:27:11 PM] Jessica Moes: Especially after this conversation, I almost am looking at technological methods with caution. Like any technology, they can do tremendous good (such as speed up revolutions, prevent violence, etc.) but they also have the capacity for bad which needs to be monitored (irrationality, action before thought). Speed can be good and bad in any certain situation.

[1/20/2012 12:27:14 PM] jeffgwarren: the internet played an intricate role in the revolutions that took place. The dissemination of information and feelings was unreal

[1/20/2012 12:27:14 PM] Taylor Orr: I was struck by their flexibility. They used all sorts of resources, not just FB but Twitter, blogs, video, pictures, and they used them in different ways. They were impressive in the ways that they were innovative. I loved how they used Twitter to tell people which streets were being occupied by police. I also thought using cabbies to spread the word was impressive

[1/20/2012 12:27:45 PM] Adrian Rossing: what really sticks with me is how the internet facilitates and instantaneous response. people were able to plan these protests overnight. without the technology this would not happen. Without the internet social change can and will happen, afterall it has for thousands of years, but with the technology we have today it is more organized and much more efficient.

[1/20/2012 12:27:45 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Taylor-- agreed about the cabbies... so smart.

[1/20/2012 12:27:50 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @Shahriar, I think part of the lack of tracking is that they didn't expect or take the Internet seriously. This worries me. A series of revolutions like we've seen would work as a warning call to other regimes.

[1/20/2012 12:27:50 PM] austin.bly89: @RR I think the circulation of powerful images is a very important aspect of why the internet can be such a powerful tool

[1/20/2012 12:27:52 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: tecnology is a exceptional medium for social change and can be the growth of a revloloution. These revoloutionists worked so hard and finally got the change they wanted. No one was expecting Facebook to aid in these achievements.

[1/20/2012 12:27:56 PM] Sarah Fleming: I was amazed by how quick these movements went. It only took 8 days to overthrow a government. Organized by a couple of college students..

[1/20/2012 12:28:06 PM] Kristen Latta: I was impressed by the way in which technology often made the protesters more brave due tot he support they felt by other protesters

[1/20/2012 12:28:09 PM] bartzy20: @Sky good point, but remember it was through the use of media of showing the videos of the riots to outside world initially in Tunisia that got it all going and then other cities started posted videos of their own riots, bring people together using the same media, would it still have happenned probably, but not as fast.

[1/20/2012 12:28:20 PM] austin.bly89: it's one thing to change your status, but it's another to change your profile picture to a powerful image

[1/20/2012 12:28:25 PM] tckyrola: @Sarah, 8 days and decades of oppression before that :) The historical lens is really important in this

[1/20/2012 12:29:01 PM] Dane Price: @austin like having "stop sopa" as your profile pic ":)

[1/20/2012 12:29:02 PM] bartzy20: also remember the twitter posting to tell people where police are, another way of effective media use.

[1/20/2012 12:29:04 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I was really struck by how everyone was always on their mobile phones and communicating through the internet even in this developing country. I feel that in America I'm so privileged I really never thought of other countries being as impacted as ours.

[1/20/2012 12:29:13 PM] Sarah Fleming: @tyler. Absolutely. But when now?

[1/20/2012 12:29:18 PM] Sarah Fleming: *why

[1/20/2012 12:29:36 PM] Josh Michalec: @Jessica I think that takes a pretty pessimistic view as to the intent of the majority. Things like these revolutions against oppressive regimes are the reason why we need a free internet. It's the last thing a government cannot completely control.

[1/20/2012 12:29:43 PM] Jon Foss: Technology is an exceptional medium for social change. We have never had our Internet or mobile phone usage watched under heavy scrutiny or taken away in the way they did. It goes to show how much we take these things for granted.

[1/20/2012 12:29:55 PM] Jessica Moes: Maybe this is me going out on a limb we don't have time to discuss, but could we argue that all of these protests in the Middle East sparked the protests that would eventually gain way here in America? Again, technology is pushing us to be active, because we see it working for others.

[1/20/2012 12:29:55 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @elliot thats a good observation about the mobile phones :)

[1/20/2012 12:30:10 PM] tckyrola: @Sarah why now keep in mind the history? I think it is important to have perspective as to just why Facebook and tech were so helpful and useful in the 'actual' revoultion, it can't be looked at by itself or in a vacuum

[1/20/2012 12:30:15 PM] Jessica Moes: And @Josh, I'm not arguing that it it's bad. I'm all for a free Internet. I just worry about the power it could have in the wrong hands.

[1/20/2012 12:30:19 PM] Taylor Orr: @KL Yeah, having a way to communicate to the masses really seemed to ingnite confidence in so many people

[1/20/2012 12:30:28 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @everyone. I read an opinion piece that argued that Internet access was a universal human right. Considering the effect it had on these revolutions do you agree or disagree?

[1/20/2012 12:30:50 PM] tckyrola: @Jessica, yes, many have theorized that already, Occupy Wallstreet is being called the American/Western Fall (there was a summer as well, going seasonally)

[1/20/2012 12:30:54 PM] Rebecca Richards: @James, you beat me to my next question

[1/20/2012 12:30:56 PM] austin.bly89: I do have to point out that BBC chose a really poor image in Tunisia when the narrator said something like "everyone had a mobile phone in their pocket" and the image was a crowd and one person had a phone and one person had a camera...

[1/20/2012 12:31:06 PM] bartzy20: @Jessica protests to overthrow the gov't or what?

[1/20/2012 12:31:07 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: @richards, sorry..

[1/20/2012 12:31:18 PM] Rebecca Richards: @james... no, it was a compliment, not a complaint :)

[1/20/2012 12:31:19 PM] Josh Michalec: @James absolutely agree. 110%.

[1/20/2012 12:31:21 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: @James In a world that is increasingly reliant on technology to stay informed, I agree.

[1/20/2012 12:31:41 PM] jeffgwarren: @james yes, i agree

[1/20/2012 12:31:44 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: @james and @shar yes

[1/20/2012 12:31:46 PM] Kathleen Stefely: @James I agree

[1/20/2012 12:31:56 PM] codykragness: @james (y)

[1/20/2012 12:32:02 PM] Taylor Orr: @james that is tough...Generally I'd say yes, but what about people who use it to do horrible wrongs? I'm pretty sure recently released criminals are barred internet access...I don't think I disagree with that

[1/20/2012 12:32:04 PM] Kristen Latta: @James yes it should be. And when the Egyptian government took it away, it was a sign that it was corrupt and robbing citizens of their universal right

[1/20/2012 12:32:11 PM] Sky Montour: @James. it's interesting to think of the internet as a right. To put it in the same category as freedom and the likes is a big step, but I would say that it is a step that this world is ready to take.

[1/20/2012 12:32:24 PM] Elliott Courchaine: I don't know if the internet is universally though. A lot of people still don't have the privileges or access to the internet

[1/20/2012 12:32:30 PM] Sarah Fleming: @james. But don't their need to be some ground rules. Couldn't it be used for other purposes that could be potentially limiting as well?

[1/20/2012 12:32:35 PM] Josh Michalec: I think the biggest reason I agree is that the internet allows for self betterment for those who otherwise would not have access to the vast array of knowledge available on the internet

[1/20/2012 12:32:48 PM] tckyrola: If it is a human right, it is somehow 'less' important. We still haven't been able to feed the entire human population or have clean water. I'd argue things that are essential to physical survival trump the internet, although as it becomes more imbedded in our lives it may eventually become a 'true' human right, looking at the scale.

[1/20/2012 12:32:53 PM] Rebecca Richards: <final thoughts>

[1/20/2012 12:32:55 PM] austin.bly89: As an extension of our freedom of speech and free thought, sure

[1/20/2012 12:32:59 PM] Jessica Moes: I think the Internet serves as the ultimate democracy, in a way.

[1/20/2012 12:33:00 PM] Jon Foss: Is the internet moving towards a Utopia?

[1/20/2012 12:33:06 PM] Adrian Rossing: @james, i do agree. it is similar to freedom of speech, the first ammendment gives us freedom of speach but there are still rules and limits.

[1/20/2012 12:33:09 PM] Taylor Orr: @SF I agree. I think there needs to be something in place, but I don't know how you go about that without limiting free speech

[1/20/2012 12:33:18 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: I personally don't view it as a right. Its an extension and a tool, so it cannot be a right.

[1/20/2012 12:33:31 PM] Josh Michalec: @elliot that's the point though, is that there needs to be a way for everyone to gain access even if they themselves do not have a computer or internet access

[1/20/2012 12:33:32 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: the internet expresses rights, but is not a right

[1/20/2012 12:33:53 PM] Elliott Courchaine: @ Josh will that be possible?

[1/20/2012 12:33:56 PM] tckyrola: I'm with James on this one, it isn't 'essential' in the way that food or water or shelter or expression is.

[1/20/2012 12:33:56 PM] Rebecca Richards: <interrupting>

[1/20/2012 12:34:00 PM] Adrian Rossing: if we think of ourselves as cyborgs does that change the discussion?

[1/20/2012 12:34:14 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Tyler-- or access to medical care...

[1/20/2012 12:34:15 PM] austin.bly89: @James, yeah... it's not a right that everyone gets a newspaper everyday.

[1/20/2012 12:34:19 PM] Josh Michalec: @elliot it already happens. Libraries, abroad they have free itnernet cafes. This needs to happen everywhere.

[1/20/2012 12:34:23 PM] Kristen Latta: we may consider it a right, but bottom line is that the internet demands the finances and ability to access it

[1/20/2012 12:34:34 PM] Rebecca Richards: These are all good ideas and topics of conversation

[1/20/2012 12:34:52 PM] Sarah Fleming: @Kl exactly. priveledge

[1/20/2012 12:34:55 PM] Rebecca Richards: and I think that this documentary presents some concrete examples of ways in which cyberliteracy is important.

[1/20/2012 12:35:19 PM] Rebecca Richards: Many of the people interviewed had a different level of cyberliteracy from what we've been discussing in class

[1/20/2012 12:35:21 PM] Joseph Pesta: @RR (y)

[1/20/2012 12:35:23 PM] Dane Price: @James I believe internet access should be concidered a basic human right at this point, as it is essentially freedom of speech. However it won't be long until a government will be able to just "X" out what people say because a government will claim they feel they are just yelling "fire" in a big theater... How do we control that really, the internet censorship, that is.

[1/20/2012 12:35:39 PM] Jessica Moes: I think one day, when it becomes financially and technologically possible, we'll hit a point where access will become a right. It's already starting to become a part of our natural nature here in the US, and it's only a matter of time before that expands. could it take forever? sure. But the possibility is still there.

[1/20/2012 12:35:54 PM] Rebecca Richards: And we'll keep talking about this Monday and through next week as we unsettle the notion of "social media" and cyberspace

[1/20/2012 12:36:11 PM] Rebecca Richards: Before everyone scatters to make snow forts...

[1/20/2012 12:36:16 PM] Josh Michalec: we need a f2f discussion about this last question haha

[1/20/2012 12:36:22 PM] Rebecca Richards: @josh, agreed

[1/20/2012 12:36:27 PM] Rebecca Richards: @josh we will. Promise

[1/20/2012 12:36:33 PM] Sarah Fleming: snow forts :) yay!

[1/20/2012 12:37:01 PM] Rebecca Richards: This weekend, I have asked that you watch the film _The Social Network_. If you have already seen it, great.

[1/20/2012 12:37:03 PM] Elliott Courchaine: @ sarah booo don't like the weather! have to go to chicago here in an hour

[1/20/2012 12:37:23 PM] Rebecca Richards: If not, it is on reserves for our class at the library.

[1/20/2012 12:37:36 PM] Rebecca Richards: You can also buy a digital copy for immediate streaming at for 9.99. or you can rent it at the Redbox at the Walgreens or Blockbuster Express at the Quik Trip (off of 19) for $1.07 (with tax).

[1/20/2012 12:37:37 PM] Taylor Orr: @RR is there just one copy?

[1/20/2012 12:37:44 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Taylor, yes, unfortunately

[1/20/2012 12:37:47 PM] Elliott Courchaine: is it on netflix/

[1/20/2012 12:37:51 PM] Rebecca Richards: But you can only check it out for 4 hours

[1/20/2012 12:37:52 PM] Jessica Moes: Also, I have a copy if you need to borrow it.

[1/20/2012 12:37:55 PM] bartzy20: movie party in @taylors room

[1/20/2012 12:38:03 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Jessica-- great! Thanks!

[1/20/2012 12:38:07 PM] Taylor Orr: @Andy if you bring the movie ;)

[1/20/2012 12:38:09 PM] bartzy20: I also have a copy if some peeps wanna watch it together???

[1/20/2012 12:38:15 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Andy- wonderful!

[1/20/2012 12:38:21 PM] Rebecca Richards: Perhaps you could use the Wiki to organize some viewing parties

[1/20/2012 12:38:24 PM] bartzy20: and a big TV :)

[1/20/2012 12:38:34 PM] Kristen Latta: @andy haha sounds great!

[1/20/2012 12:38:37 PM] Rebecca Richards: and while you watch, I want you to consider this...

[1/20/2012 12:38:38 PM] Taylor Orr: @Bartz your place it is

[1/20/2012 12:38:41 PM] Rebecca Richards: in light of today's viewing

[1/20/2012 12:38:57 PM] Jon Foss: Is it on Netflix? ...

[1/20/2012 12:39:03 PM] Dane Price: Why does a "viewing party" sound "Brave new World" ish to me

[1/20/2012 12:39:08 PM] Adrian Rossing: @jon no

[1/20/2012 12:39:10 PM] Sky Montour: i dont think its a free stream Jon

[1/20/2012 12:39:17 PM] Jon Foss: ok thanks

[1/20/2012 12:39:19 PM] Rebecca Richards: how does this narrative about the birth of FB shape how we understand its use?

[1/20/2012 12:39:28 PM] Rebecca Richards: @Jon, you can get the DVD but not streaming

[1/20/2012 12:40:06 PM] Rebecca Richards: What I mean is, how do we make sense out of how technology is developed in light of how technology is used?

[1/20/2012 12:40:10 PM] Rebecca Richards: Consider Mark Z

[1/20/2012 12:40:16 PM] Rebecca Richards: and his motivations

[1/20/2012 12:40:22 PM] Rebecca Richards: and then the people interviewed in today's documentary

[1/20/2012 12:40:45 PM] Rebecca Richards: And we'll discuss how these motivations shape one another on Monday

[1/20/2012 12:41:01 PM] Rebecca Richards: Any questions/comments/ or concerns?

[1/20/2012 12:41:08 PM] jeffgwarren: nope. sounds good

[1/20/2012 12:41:16 PM] Kristen Latta: sounds good

[1/20/2012 12:41:18 PM] Sarah Fleming: nope! happy weekend.

[1/20/2012 12:41:19 PM] Taylor Orr: Nope, have a good weekend :)

[1/20/2012 12:41:22 PM] Rebecca Richards: Happy weekend to you all

[1/20/2012 12:41:22 PM] Elliott Courchaine: nope take care!!!

[1/20/2012 12:41:26 PM] tckyrola: So long all!

[1/20/2012 12:41:27 PM] Rebecca Richards: hang out here if you have any questions

[1/20/2012 12:41:28 PM] Adrian Rossing: thanks!

[1/20/2012 12:41:29 PM] Kathleen Stefely: Nope, see you Monday

[1/20/2012 12:41:29 PM] Katherine Fitzgerald: none :) peace

[1/20/2012 12:41:31 PM] Rebecca Richards: Please be careful traveling

[1/20/2012 12:41:34 PM] Rebecca Richards: the roads are awful

[1/20/2012 12:41:35 PM] *** Katherine Fitzgerald has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:41:35 PM] Rebecca Richards: :(

[1/20/2012 12:41:35 PM] Jessica Moes: ttfn

[1/20/2012 12:41:37 PM] bartzy20: see @Taylor and @Latta in the penalty box

[1/20/2012 12:41:39 PM] James Quincy Sponsel: no questions. adios

[1/20/2012 12:41:42 PM] jeffgwarren: @taylor/latta good luck tonight!

[1/20/2012 12:41:42 PM] Josh Michalec: email/wiki for the movie errbody

[1/20/2012 12:41:43 PM] *** Taylor Orr has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:41:43 PM] Josh Michalec: later

[1/20/2012 12:41:47 PM] Rebecca Richards: Ciao!

[1/20/2012 12:41:47 PM] Shahriar Shahbazi: See you all on Monday

[1/20/2012 12:41:49 PM] Kristen Latta: haha good one bartz

[1/20/2012 12:41:53 PM] *** tckyrola has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:41:53 PM] *** Sarah Fleming has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:41:55 PM] *** Shahriar Shahbazi has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:41:56 PM] bartzy20: i have a question

[1/20/2012 12:42:01 PM] Rebecca Richards: Sure Andy

[1/20/2012 12:42:03 PM] *** Sky Montour has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:42:05 PM] *** Kathleen Stefely has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:42:06 PM] bartzy20: @RR are you watching facebook movie with us?

[1/20/2012 12:42:17 PM] Rebecca Richards: :)

[1/20/2012 12:42:27 PM] Rebecca Richards: Um, do you mean am I re-watching it this weekend? Yes, I am.

[1/20/2012 12:42:29 PM] *** oooxxxxxzzzz has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:42:32 PM] Rebecca Richards: Or do you mean literally

[1/20/2012 12:42:34 PM] Rebecca Richards: ?

[1/20/2012 12:42:45 PM] bartzy20: the former

[1/20/2012 12:42:48 PM] Rebecca Richards: yes

[1/20/2012 12:42:50 PM] *** bartzy20 has left ***

[1/20/2012 12:43:30 PM] *** Rebecca Richards has left ***