How could mashups serve international governance? Would mashups serve to make government more effective

According to Wikipedia, Mashup is a platform (web page or application) combines two or more sources to make a new program or function. In this case, people could integrate the existing functions or data to create the new one. Thus, people could have their own web program or software; it is a way that democratizes the internet users. In the level of state, based on the ideology of Mashup, government can gather the information from internet and monitor them. Therefore, the government can easily restrict the information which they do not want people to see. For example, from this week’s reading, the Chinese government set several rules and regulations to manage the information on-line. The regulations involve in many perspectives such as politics, social order, and criminal information. The authority even asked some foreign website to block the information according to the roles if they want to do business in China and usually resulted in some conflicts between government and the foreign website. For instance, Google announced to withdraw from China since they are not able to restrict the information which they are excepted to. There are some arguments based on these roles. Some believed that the regulations violate the freedom of public. Some argued that it is effective for government to manage the ill-natured information due to provide a better internet environment.

Links：http://www.programmableweb.com/, http://mashupawards.com/

The Global Civil Society

According to this week’s reading, the global civil society has three social and political implications. Firstly, there is influence shift from state-based institutions to social relations. The relationships between different NGOs become significant in political and social perspectives. Then, the NGOs played important rules and become essential actors in the international society. Thirdly, the global civil society is moving toward more democratic based politics. The NGOs and even the state based institutions will become more “people centered” (Warkentin & Mingst 2000, p238). The individual rights will be highlighted and the state sovereignty may be limited.

On the other hand, the market is also a fundamental component. In global society, the transnational cooperation and interaction become more actively. Some international trading agreements like the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) is designed to carry out some regulations in due to ensure the transnational investment is standardized into same way. It is seem to be a good method to minimize the transaction cost and encourage foreign investment. However, there is a series of oppositions have been lead by some NGOs to against the MAI. These NGOs criticized the agreement would violate labor and environmental conditions. They argued that MAI would lead the countries to competitively minimize their labor cost due to attract foreign investment. This is a typical negative aspect of global civil society. When many countries are integrated together in market, the country with better economic development and leading technologies would constrain and take advantage from the weaker countries. For example, they may benefit from hiring cheap labor and getting permission to pollute the environment.

In brief, the global civil society has both positive and negative perspective.

Source: Craig Warkentin and Karen Mingst, “International Institutions, the State and Global Civil Society in the Age of the World Wide Web,” Global Governance 6 (April-June 2000): 237-257.

Does Internet Democratize the Consumer? Is privacy a concern?

In Arun Sharma and Jagdish N Sheths’ article, the transition from traditional marketing to reverse marketing is initially highlighted. The traditional marketing theory mainly focuses on the products and services which the companies and firms can produce. The marketing target is to promote demand for the product (Sharma & Sheth 2004, P697). The reverse marketing focuses on customer side of the market. As the increasing influence of Internet Business, the manufactures began to stop sustaining producing and to seek the orders from customers. Therefore, as the author stated, the marketing has changed to “customer- centric” perspective (Sharma & Sheth 2004, P697). Based on the internet, the manufactures and companies could easily gather opinions from many customers and the individual order is also possible to be made. The customers now have opportunities to choose the products which mostly fit their needs. In some case, instead of comparing different existing products, the customers could design their own production style. For example, on some shoe makers’ website like Nike and Adidas, people can freely fill different colors on several types of shoes and order it through the website. As a result, the development trend of product and service will become more personalize.

In my opinion, privacy is a significant concern. People will disclose their personal information when they shopping on-line. The firms, on the other hand, obtain many people’s financial, medical, and social information. How they would use these information is a big question. Some firms trade their customers’ information as profitable product. Until there is universal agreement or regulation has been reached on the privacy of customer information by all companies, otherwise, privacy is always a concern.

Source：Arun Sharma and Jagdish Sheth (2004) Web-based markeing: The coming revolution in marketing thought and strategy, Journal of Business Research 57 696-702

Translation

Before translate:
"Because we need to know, and because people need to know, more than ever we need a sociology rooted in its scientific endeavor. Of course, it must have the specificity of its object of study, and thus of its theories and methods, without mimicking the natural sciences in a futile search for respectability. And it must have a clear purpose of producing objective knowledge (yes! there is such a thing, always in relative terms), brought about by empirical observation, rigorous theorizing, and unequivocal communication. Then we can argue-and we will!-about the best way to proceed with observation, theory building, and formal expression of findings, depending on subject matter and methodological traditions. But without a consensus on sociology as science-indeed, as a specific social science-we sociologists will fail in our professional and intellectual duty at a time when we are needed most. We are needed because, individually and collectively, most people in the world are lost about the meaning of the whirlwind we are going through. So they need to know which kind of society we are in, which kind of social processes are emerging, what is structural, and what can be changed through purposive social action. And we are needed because without understanding, people, rightly, will block change, and we may lose the extraordinary potential of creativity embedded into the values and technologies of the Information Age. We are needed because as would-be scientists of society we are positioned better than anyone else to produce knowledge about the new society, and to be credible-or at least more credible than the futurologists and ideologues that litter the interpretation of current historical changes, let alone politicians always jumping on the latest trendy word. "

After Traslate:
"Because we need to know, because people need to know, we are more necessary than ever, it is rooted in the sociology of science. Of course, it must have its special nature of the object of study, so it's theory and methods, do not search in vain to imitate the distinguished natural science. It must have an objective to produce a clear understanding of the purpose (yes! There is such a thing, is always relative terms), arising from empirical observation, rigorous theory, and clear communication. Then we can say that we will be! The best way of observation, theory construction, and the findings of the official statements, according to the traditional themes and methods. However, if there is no consensus, science, sociology and, indeed, as a specific social science, we sociologist will use our expertise obligation to fail most of the time when we need. We are necessary, because, individually and collectively, in the world, most people are experiencing in our whirlwind meaningless. Therefore, they need to know in our society, which is a social process is the emergence of what is structural, as well as by a purposeful change in social action. In addition, we needed, because there is no understanding of, human, right, will block the changes, we may lose the potential to be extraordinary creativity, value and the technology embedded in the information age. We need to because you want to become scientists, social status, we are than anyone else give rise to a new society of knowledge, and credibility, or at least more than the future scientists and theorists refuse the current interpretation of the credibility of historical change, not to the politicians are always the latest and most fashionable word jump. "

Source:Castells, M. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary Sociology. 29(5): 693-699.

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week? What version of historical change do you believe in and why?

In Fraiberg’s article, several postmodern cultural theories which related to AIDS are discussed. Baudrillard argued the era of networks abolished the boundary between the private sector and the public. The Communication, in Baudrillard’s mind, eliminated the private secrets, spaces and scenes. By integrated with the network, the body will be influenced and lose its self-control status. Jameson’s implication on postmodern culture is theory of hyperspace which constructed a global networking based on multinational capital. To extend his theory into AIDS, the “general public can contract HIV as well.”(Fraiberg, Of Aids.) Haraway viewed the cyborg as a “cybernetic organism” that an organism combined both natural and artificial system. Based on her opinion, there is a balancing of cyborg between the hazard and “potent fusions”. Then, there are some AIDS criticism has been discussed in the article such as AIDS representation’s biological and historical context, and the conditioning of the disease’s contagion, quarantine, and contamination. In the end, Fraiberg argues the it is the cyborg integration is denied in the traditional realm of authority. However, the interconnectedness and the body resurfacing may shift the authorized sites to larger scale of recognition.

In Castells’s article, the main argument is to encourage sociology to root in scientific endeavor since people are losing their understanding about the development of society. The author firstly carried out four dimensions about social change, new technological such as genetic engineering, globalization issue such as institutional capacity, dominant cultural interaction such as multimedia hypertext, and the global economic issue between sovereign states. Then, the internet is set as a main component of new society; for example, the global financial markets are connected by the internet. The emerging of new society is considered as a new perspective, so it needs a new methodology to study it. Therefore, the study of sociology needs to be developed in order to answer the theoretical questions about network society in the future.

From late 20th century to the present, the entire world is moving towards globalization. The internet actually connected people more closely. However, people are losing their understanding about recent development and progress in society. Some people just adopted the new technologies such as internet, and digital devices; but they did not learn the meaning behind it. Thus, the study of the current social development is necessary.

Source：
Castells, M. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary Sociology. 29(5): 693-699.
Allison Fraiberg, "Of Aids, Cyborgs, and Other Indiscretions: Resurfacing the Body in the Postmodern." Postmodern Culture 1.3 (1991)

What are the main arguments in the two readings for this week?

In Charles Ess’s article, the argument is made based on some assumptions of “The Electronic Global Village” including cosmopolitanism, universal democracy, peace and prosperity. The author individually examined each of these assumptions; and pointed out that the electronic global village may undermine the regional culture and result in ethnical problems. The electronic global village has Western origins and it is more legitimated in Western traditions. Thus, the author argues, it is a form of ethnocentrism which leads Western people to believe their culture is more superior and advance. The universal democracy is also idealistic since some information that circulating on line such as pornography and hedonism are contradicted to certain cultural values and even against law in certain states. Therefore, the cross-cultural issue is a barrier to the development of global electronic society.

In Ronald V. Bettig’s article, the author discussed the development of cyberspace through political economic view. Basically, there are three structural tendencies dominated the evolution of communications. The first tendency is the centralization in communication markets. In capitalist view, the mergers and acquisitions among media companies actually resulted in creating some monopolistic corporations. The state can control the media through managing these companies. Then, the intellectual property rights could constrain the multi-media industry since intellectual information and products owners are able to control the media interaction. Thirdly, the development of information and cultural products became more commercialized than before. The value of information and cultural goods could determine the development of the media market which directly influenced the cyberspace.

In my opinion, I’m familiar with the idea of media commercialization. Many corporations within the industry made huge profits based on their development. Also, there are still many new ventures try to enter the industry since they have seen the growth value in information and communication. Otherwise, in capitalist view, if the media industry is not profitable there will not be so many investors interest in.

What determines the structure of a folksonomy and why? The code, the content or the social process? What does your answer to this question suggest a

The term “folksonomy” can be divided into two words; folk means a group of people and taxonomy is a term usually used in biology to classify animals or plants into different species. Together, folksonomy means a group of internet users mutually classify or generalize the information into certain categories. Tagging is the major method of folksonomy. With the ability of Web2.0, and people can tag the information based on their own understanding or the keywords which it contents into different categories. Thus, the structure of a folksonomy is determined by people’s knowledge or wisdom, and the content of certain information. However, since the tags are made from different internet users, the same information may be tagged into different categories through people’s various opinions. On the other hand, the tags are widely shared on internet; meanwhile, the search engines such as Google usually navigate the information through tags. As the ongoing process of globalization, people often have the similar understanding about some popular information or knowledge. For example, when I typed term “digital divide” in Google search bar, the results such as definition, related articles, and photographs appeared that were mostly arranged by tags on different sites. Although there are various websites content the term “digital divide”, most of their understandings or explanations are same. Thus, in the globalized world, people are more socially connected than before through internet, and they will share the same opinions for certain issues.

Are wikis an effective means of communication? Why or why not? Why does it matter?

An effective means of communication should contain two fundamental factors. Firstly, it must provide a bilateral way for people to communicate. That means people are able to express their opinion and to get the responses from others, not just Then, people must have rights to communicate without any limitation or artificial barriers for example to prevent the discussion on politics. Undoubtedly, wikis are effective means of communication. Wikis actually provide people with a collaborative environment for people to communicate. For example, within Wikipedia, everyone have the freedom of contributing their personal knowledge to construct a certain topic. Unlike an internet database, there is no authorized participant, and no centralized or standard information. This is a network that people can mutually share their knowledge and ideas just like people communicate with each others in a society. In other words, this is a process of social networking in digital way. The significant achievement for wikis is to provide a universal base for people who do not even know each other to communicate. Therefore, the range of social networking is widely extended. People can share their thoughts or even can work together through wikis without meet each other like to create an article in Wikipedia. Obviously, this is a progress to global communication and social networking.

Wee3

In 21st century, the creation of New Media based on digital technology was already adopted by many people around the world. As new media more relied on Internet or other digital method, the problem of digital divide is more likely to shown. In order to acquire information through new media, people at least should have devices that can access to the internet. For example, New Media include website which is under user’s control, and on-line communication tool such as MSN and ICQ. Also, it is faster for news to spread through internet than through newspaper. However, the problem is not everyone can afford that kind of devices such as laptop, or PDA; especially to the people from global south. Therefore, the gap of people’s standard ability to acquire knowledge through new media is formed between people lived in developed countries and people lived in developing regions. In sense of the spread of technology, the new media was already familiar to the majority in some developed regions like North America. In contrast, many people in global south may never accessed to internet before or there is no proper device located near their home. As a result, they will have less and lower information compare to the people who can take the advantage of New Media. Importantly, the spread of New Media is highly integrated with ongoing process of globalization; thus, people who are unable access to any method of New Media will be isolated from the global society since they can not communicate or exchange ideas with the people around the world. As time goes by, these people will be abandoned by the world. That’s why people should focus on the digital divide.

Week 2

In their early lives in 1940s, letter writing was the major way that they could communicate with their relatives or friends who lived far away from them. Also, they could visit their friends and relatives if they could get there by walking or wagon. Otherwise, they could orally communicate through their neighbor who may travel to their relatives' hometown. In that time, phone was only used for administrative and military purpose. In late 1970s, when my grandfather worked as professor in an university, he used phone for first time to call my dad who served in arm in that time.


For me, Web 3.0 could positively change my life from to major parts. When I do a certain academic research in Web3.0 age, Google or other research websites will not only show the results that only familiar with the phrase I typed in. They will understand the semantic meaning behind the phrase or relate it to the entire topic which I’m searching for; therefore, my computer can actively help me. This new invention can significantly reduce both the time I spend on researching materials, and the time I’m trying to figure out which phrase I should type in to get the information I prefer to. Then, I hate shopping in supermarket especially in weekend days. I usually get frustrated during finding parking spot and line-up waiting for check-out. In Web 3.0 age, I may just simply set the food and supply shopping day on my laptop’s calendar; then my laptop will order everything and ask for delivery to my home. In that case, I will stop wasting my life in supermarket. That’s my expectation for Web3.0 and I desire it could happen soon.


I grew up in the world where internet and other digital technologies were already existed. Once I learned how to use computer and cell phone, my life started to build on digital technology. I communicate with my friends on-line or through cell phone way more than I meet them. When I face something I don’t understand or I never heard before, I prefer to search on internet rather than search in library. Life will become difficult to me if I live without my laptop and cell phone since I'm already conditioned to live in digital world and it is a main part of my live. These are the main reasons affect me to answer the question above.

New

For ISTB01