The future of the World Wide Web

Web 3.0

The term Web 3.0 should not be misinterpreted as just another upgrade with a few new features.  When Web 3.0 does come around it will be a new era of internet that incorporates groundbreaking technology into our everyday internet browsing and networking.  Some examples may include artificial intelligence, increasing use of virtual worlds, and .  First though an understanding of its predecessor’s web 1.0 and 2.0 will help to visualize what the future of the World Wide Web may hold. 

Web 1.0 is very limiting when it comes to user interaction.  The user may view webpages and related links within pages but cannot change or input information of their own.  Only the individual or group that created the web page is authorized to edit or input media, text, and hyperlinks to the page.  Web 2.0 on the other hand uses a technologies such as JavaScript, Adobe Flash, and Adobe Flex to allow users to input or view information without re-loading the web page.  Some examples of Web 2.0 are blogging, social networking, and podcasting.  All of these allow multiple users to upload text or media files for each other to view instantaneously.  Tagging on social network sites allows for the same material to be seen on each site the tagger is affiliated with creating a great tool for either marketing or personal social interactions.

 

When we search for things using browsers or search engines they collect our results and in some cases survey how relevant the results we received are.  Another example of this is through social media such as facebook when people “like” a page or someone hashtags something on twitter these pages are viewed more and are more popular.  Unfortunately this can be manipulated by people looking to make something more popular for either financial or social gain by skewing results.  One goal that is associated with Web 3.0 is the use of artificial intelligence within the web.  For example, if a person is trying to make a web page selling a product more popular using social media when in truth the product is not selling well or has defects, Web 3.0 can tell the difference between the two and not suggest that website when asked about said product.

Artificial intelligence is also necessary to achieve the Web 3.0 goal of a “Semantic” Web.

The definition of semantic is:  Relating to meaning in language or logic.  Furthermore the “Semantic” web presents information in a way that computers can understand it in a similar way humans do.  The most recent example of this is the supercomputer developed by IBM known as Watson.  Watson was developed to take meaning out of language that a computer normally would not and the best test of this was when Watson played on the game show Jeopardy.  The computer proved its worth beating two contestants out and showed that the sometimes subtle meanings that we can convey with turns of phrase or a play on words are not incomprehensible by machines.  Therefore, a tag team of artificial intelligence and an understanding of semantics could allow Web 3.0 to efficiently process information and present us with the most accurate and relevant information possible.

Links used in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/what-is-web-30.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20Computer-t.html?pagewanted=all

This is your brain on ..... the Internet?

In the heyday of the 1980's a public service announcement by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America launched a profound ad. The "This is Your Brain on Drugs" ad made a simple point, drugs can destroy your brain. This PSA was launched during the height of the "Just Say No to Drugs" campaign, and perhaps a similar campaign should begin today. While not going after drugs, there is something that is a daily part of most people's lives that is potentially negativity altering their brains. This scourge can be found in public libraries, schools, workplaces, and even in a growing number of Americans pockets. What may be frying people's brains is the Internet and other new social technologies.

In a piece titled "Your Brain vs Technology: How our wired world is changing the way we think" by Natasha Lomas, the effects of informational techonology on the human brain is investigated. One Study examined makes the case clear: "Our results suggested that long-term internet addiction would result in brain structural alterations, which probably contributed to chronic dysfunction in subjects with IAD [internet addiction disorder]" Susan Greenfield, professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford, explaining such research highlights that there is are not necessarily good or bad findings from this research, but that the effects are changing our modes of socialization. As Dr. Greenfield explains "The human brain is so exquisitely adapted to be perfectly adapted to whatever environment it's in. If it's in an environment where it communicates mainly with computers, it too will become like a computer - with both the good and bad things [associated with that]." 

Another recent study, examined the effects of users memory if they believed that they would be able to find information online. The conclusion found that "the internet has become a primary form of external or trans active memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves." Basically, why remember something when all you have to do is remember how to find it. This change in memory behavior is certainly a newer phenomena. Combined with Dr. Greenfield's research it would be simple to say the times are changing the way we live and think.


Dr Paul Howard-Jones, senior lecturer in education at the University of Bristol, relays a different message. "Whenever we learn, there are changes that occur in our brains - the brain is plastic - and I think a lot of the concerns we have when we find out that things are rewiring our brains arise from a misconception that our brain is in many respects hardwired." Dr. Howard-Jones goes on to note that while technology may be changing the way our brains work it's not necessarily a bad thing, "So, yes, using the internet rewires our brains. Should we be concerned? No, I don't think so. All experience, when it becomes a learning experience, rewires our brains to some extent." 


As time marches on, and technology continues to change our daily lives, the impacts may not be negative. At the same time, there is a clear indication that using modern technologies will have some impact on the way a human brain functions. Brain to egg analogy: Scrambled or fried, something is happening to our neurological systems and informational technology is the one doing the cooking.

Sources in order of use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U
http://www.silicon.com/technology/hardware/2011/11/10/your-brain-vs-technology-how-our-wired-world-is-changing-the-way-we-think-39747925/2/
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020708
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/776

Internet Identity: Are We Ever Truly Anonymous?

Computers and technology change everyday, becoming more advanced and complicated. So the question comes to mind, are the things we say and do online really anonymous? Will the Internet eventually, take our personal information from Facebook, Amazon or Google and create a catalog of who we are on the Internet and what we want in life? Will we be contacted by our computer telling us what we might want to read and look at? Are we ever truly anonymous anymore?

In this day and age, it seems we want to keep our privacy, while at the same time we put our information on websites like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter for all the world to see. So does it even matter anymore? We live in a generation that wants things to be simpler and easier for us, but then when Google, for instance, allows for you to be signed on to Youtube and Google with the same login information, we get angry. So people have taken to using different names and identities online. But is that so wrong?

This very issue has brought about something called the "nymwars" basically focusing on the idea that people should have the right to present themselves under any identity that they want online. Some controversy arose over the summer with Facebook and its "real-name policy" when Facebook changed famous author Salman Rushdie's profile name to Ahmed Rushdie, a name he never uses except for on his passport. After taking to Twitter with the injustice Facebook changed his name back; but is Facebook correct? Should people only be able to use their real names on the Internet?

Some people are more inclined to believe that anonymity and privacy are synonymous but some believe that it is just a means by which people can hide behind their computer and antagonize the weak. According to Randi Zuckerberg the marketing director for Facebook, putting restrictions on how anonymous people can be very well may put a stop to cyberbullying. So should we be censored and not allowed our right to privacy, or should we stay anonymous and not be held to any decency standards on the Internet? Many people believe that we should create these standards in order to keep civility in this ever-changing world, thus limiting people's right to free speech.

In my opinion there is no right answer at this point, all I know is that personally I want to keep my personal information private. But I'm not blind to the fact that not everyone uses the Internet in appropriate ways, and down the road we may need to consider limiting anonymity in order to protect the weak and the innocent. Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse.

Links in Order of Use:

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19352047

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html?scp=2&sq=rushdie&st=cse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-anonymity-online_n_910892.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-anonymity-and-incivility-on-the-internet.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

What Google did for the Internet.

The Internet and the world wide web as we know it has come a long way from its original use.  Evolving the simple connections between mainframe computers and terminals to the world wide instant connection it is today took approximately 40 years.  Originally only used by scientist and institutions for sharing information a drastic change came in the 1980's when Internet service became commercial.  In order to have success being commercial the Internet needed to be streamlined for the common person's use.  In 1996 two Stanford PhD. students began working on a project that would revolutionize the world wide web.

There were search engines before Google, but Google set itself apart with an algorithm that was designed to put the most pertinent pages first.  This change allowed for a simplified search engine that was renown for providing extremely relevant results.  The company grew exponentially to the powerhouse it now is today offering a variety of different tools for navigating the web.

The search function of Google is the most popular application that is offered for navigating the web, but Google offers many more services for web browsing.  iGoogle offers a personalized web browser home page that offers many of the same tools that a computers desktop has on it.  Also, there are applications to run websites on this home page that Google owns or is partners with.  Bookmark is a tool that allows you to mark your most visited websites for access with just a click.  These bookmarks can be transferred to any other computer using a Google ID and Password.

Although Google conquers the Internet spatially it also boasts a large group of geographic applications.  One of the most interactive is Google Earth which allows the user to view 3D images of almost the whole globe.  Two more applications that are a little closer to home are Offers and Maps.  Maps can be used like a GPS with turn by turn directions.  Offers gives hints for discounts and deals on various social events and commercial products.  Still, tools that relate to locations Panoramio and Latitude could be considered social programs.  Panoramio allows users to share and view photos all over the world, while Latitude lets users locate friends and family if they also use Latitude.  Finally one of the most advanced tool offered is a variety of Auto CAD called Sketch up.

These are only some of the variety of tools that Google offers all of which are free.  There are other search engines that compete with Google such as Bing but none that surpass the wide range of services it offers.  The Internet would have became as large as it is today without Google, but its creation helped people find websites they wanted faster and accelerated the Internet to the global phenomenon it now is.



1.http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/history.html
2.http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/google1.htm
3.http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/index.html

Intellectual Property

On January, 18th you may have noticed a few websites were rather inaccessible. Aside from our love of Cats saying the darnedest things being blocked (lolcats), and the need to answer all of life's questions disabled (Wikipedia), Internet entrepreneurs staged a rather successful protest. At issue are twin bills going through the United States Congress.  HR 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and  S.968, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. While at the time of this posting both bills have been recessed indefinitely by their respective chambers, a serious question regarding the role of web content providers in limiting access to pirated content remains.


Internet wunderkinds Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, and a host of others contend that these bills would effectivly kill the internet. In an open letter to Washington D.C. penned by multiple internet "players" the reason is  rather simple and concise: 

"These two pieces of legislation threaten to: Require web services, like the ones we helped found, to monitor what users link to, or upload. This would have a chilling effect on innovation; Deny website owners the right to due process of law; Give the U.S. Government the power to censor the web using techniques similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran; and Undermine security online by changing the basic structure of the Internet."

The heart of the matter relates to specific portions allowing the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to seek court orders to censor material that may or may not be in violation of private copyrights. These organizations fear that while they are not specifically responsible for the content that their users post, they would be liable and face financial and use repercussions before any definitive legal judgement. Some go as far to suggest site such as  YouTube would cease to exist and artists such as Justin Bieber, would go to jail..


The authors of both SOPA and PIPA contend that Internet piracy is all too common. The contention is that websites, such as Google, should have an active role in limiting illegal access to pirated material. SOPA author Lamar Smith put it bluntly in a recent  Fox News Opinion piece titled "The Truth about SOPA." Mr. Smith contends that "this is a constitutional bill that protects free speech and America’s intellectual property. It’s not censorship to enforce the law and stop criminal activity." He goes on to note "so if SOPA only applies to foreign illegal websites, then why are Google and Wikipedia opposed? Unfortunately, one of the reasons why you can’t believe everything you read about the Stop Online Piracy Act is because some critics of this bill have generated enormous profits from illegal websites that sell stolen intellectual property." 


While Smith may be trying to court public opinion he goes on to note that Google has been fined in the past for copyright violations, and the loss of profit and employment that easy dissemination of pirated material causes to content developers. Industry giants on both sides of the issue are worried about the same general thing, money.


In my mind the real debate boils down to access. Traditionally, you had to pay the artist money to access the product. With instant communication, we now have a situation where the artist cannot control their customer's access to the product. Technically, while the artist may view their labor and capital as having monetary value, the market has spoken with a big: NOPE. While it's nice to theorize that we can delegitimize theft of intellectual property without disrupting communication mediums, reality says it isn't going to happen anytime soon or without major changes to the nature of content delivery.


Links in order of use:

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/fight-over-stop-online-privacy
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.968:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa-letter/ 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288740/did-word-manner-kill-sopa-robert-verbruggen

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/under-sopa-justin-beiber-would-be-in-jail/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/truth-about-sopa/#ixzz1k1gOGKaO

Posted by John "Jack" Whitmore

Google and You: Orkut vs. The World

Google has become a mega power in the Internet world. It seems like every few months Google is premiering another state-of-the-art idea. In just a few short years the phrase "just Google it" has become a household staple. However, it is also clear that not all of Google's ideas have thrived like their search engine.

Orkut, is a social media aspect of Google that has done anything but take off...in the United States that is. According to Orkut's demographic page 50.6 % of users are from Brazil, followed by 20.44% of users in India and only 17.78% in the United States . Alternatively in these foreign countries, Orkut's counterparts Facebook and Myspace seems almost non-existent. So how did this happen? Why does Orkut have such staying power overseas?

According to an article published in Forbes magazine in 2007, branding and advertising are the key. In 2007 alone Facebook was projected to make over $100 million that year. And according to Greg Sterling, a consultant with Sterling Market Research, Google has a very high potential to gain revenue from Orkut too, especially overseas. Because Google has ad coverage overseas, that appeals to that clientele, it only makes sense that Orkut would gain popularity and revenue. Yes, it is true that Orkut will need more than just ad sales to increase it's popularity, but since 2007 there have been a lot of changes in Google's version of Facebook.

Just this December alone, Orkut has re-vamped their communities feature, added personalized theme pages, and badges to their site. Recently Orkut has even acquired an app from the Apple Store for the iPad and iPhone. It is clear that Google is definitely trying to make Orkut more inviting, however from what I can tell , almost everything you can do on Orkut you can do on Facebook faster. Even in Orkut's two most prominent use countries, India and Brazil, usage and interest as decreased and moved to Facebook. Should Google cut ties with Orkut or keep going on this rocky course? It seems they have made their choice...

While, Google still tries to keep Orkut alive, it seems that, they are simultaneously promoting Google+ as a social app and it is gaining more speed. Google+ commercials come on TV in the United States all the time now, promoting the "Circles" idea, much like Facebook's "lists". But Orkut is still laying by the side of the road untouched in the advertising market. So is Google giving up and going a different path in the social networking world or have they given up altogether?

In my opinion, Orkut is an amazing idea because the possibilities are endless when teamed up with all over the other applications that Google offers, but if Google wants to thrive with Orkut in the social networking market, their are going to need to advertise, advertise, and advertise some more. Because without exploring all of the Google apps options as a class assignment, I had never heard of Orkut at all and I'm sure there are many other people who could say the same thing.

Links in Order of Use:

http://www.orkut.com/MembersAll

http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/

http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/28/google-brazil-network-tech-cx_ag_0828orkut.html

http://support.google.com/orkut/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=181311

http://mashable.com/2012/01/19/orkut-app/

http://techleash.com/2012/01/facebook-kills-orkut-in-brazil-no-stop-to-its-supremacy/

http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Downfall_of_Orkut_and_Focus_on_Google_Plus-nid-102019-cid-2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVf3UaZePC8