Fisch Can't Swim

We spoke yesterday about digital advertisements that target user preferences on Facebook, Gmail, and other platforms. I’ve always found these targeted ads somewhat unsettling ­– they remind me of the difficulty of having full control over the extent of the information that internet sites “know” about me. In fact, it would be interesting to have some sort of objective internet inspection done on myself, to know how much information about me exists in the ether – both the hard and fast facts (birthdate, etc.) as well as my preferences that may change over time (friends, TV shows I like, political affiliations).

Today, the line between active and passive internet involvement seems to be fuzzier than ever before. Take the political affiliation example. If I give a donation to a political candidate, that politician’s monthly or quarterly FEC report will show that I gave them money; an outside observer could conclude that I support that politician. Liking a certain politician’s Facebook page or retweeting and sharing their online content could also be considered active support for a candidate. In both the donation case and the social-media-sharing case, I know that people online will publicly be able to see that information and conclude that I support the candidate.

However, what if I don’t donate or don’t think I’m actively engaging with this politician on social media, yet on Facebook, I click on news articles or web links that support my candidate and also click on content that brings up flaws in their opponent? I intend for only myself to know what articles I’m clicking on, yet Facebook (and whoever else could have access to their data) could start to conclude information about my preferences. Methods of engagement that we may think of (or want to think of) as passive can still be active. We as a user may not see our actions as active, but Facebook (and other sites) certainly does.

We also discussed how the internet facilitates more efficient online transactions, and many of the benefits of having an internet-age economy. But what if the goods we’re buying or selling are illegal? I’m interested in how goods sold over the dark internet/Tor network fit into our overall economy. The fascinating idea that “money is just a representation of a bit” was also brought up yesterday, which made me think of bitcoins and other the ways that illegal transactions are conducted. Not sure if we will learn about the technical background of bitcoins in this course, but that is something I’d definitely want to explore if there’s time.

Switching gears, it’s interesting to think about the benefits of Anderson’s Long Tail concept, but also those who oppose it. Funnily enough, the Long Tail showed up in my sociology lecture earlier today. We were talking about production of culture and how a “Blockbuster” strategy can lead to a far greater profit than capitalizing on the Long Tail, after reading sections from Anita Elberse’s Blockbuster. Many large movie studios today don’t focus on the Long Tail and instead use a Blockbuster method: funding three or four major projects (often sequels, remakes, or known crowd pleasers) and hoping that one of them is a box-office smash-hit. This leaves far less room for funding “art house” and other more unique artistic project. Eric Schmidt was a major supporter of the Long Tail when Anderson’s idea first emerged. Only a few years later, however, his views changed and he stated that a Blockbuster approach may be more effective going forward – evidence for how quickly developments can occur in our modern internet era (source: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2013/07/22/longtail/).

We discussed this afternoon the debate of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet form of connectivity. In broad terms, the Token Ring method allowed a set of computers to “talk” (use the network) only when it was “their turn” ­– similar to the idea that only those with the conch shell were allowed to speak in Lord of the Flies.

Ethernet was slightly more haphazard, with different computers all connected and “talking” at once; if more than one computer tried to “speak” at the same time, the signal would stop transmitting and one computer or the other would try again.

The Ethernet system – although less orderly, it was certainly more efficient – eventually won out over the Token Ring format. It’s interesting that a process in which more computers (or users) are able to connect at the same time happens on a system with less order and, in a sense, less decorum. People were no longer “waiting their turn.”

A piece of technology that connects us but that also seems to correspond with a breakdown in politeness sounds eerily similar to our use of our smart phones today, especially when in conversation with someone standing in front of you. Through our phones, we have the potential to be connected with so many outlets – people, information, etc. – and yet to do so is to discourteously disengage with the present moment. Perhaps there’s something to be said here about propriety’s role in our use of technology.

Date: 12 Sep 2016 1655-EST

From: Samuel Fisch at HC-8B

Subject: Hello again.

To: John Harvard at HC-8B

CC: FRSEMR 50N@HC-8B

Sender: SAMUEL.FISCH at HC-8B

My-Seq-#: 19998555

Yr-Seq-#: 04202002

Class: Freshman Seminar 50N

Subclass: MCMXLIV

Founded: MDCXXXVI

Typist: Moi

Terminal: TTY88

Spelling-errors-this-blogpost: 0 (Hopefully.)

Weather: Blue skies, sunny

Forecast: Soon to be snowy

Security-level: Public

———————————————————–

Hello again,

We spoke today about reading lines of 1’s and 0’s, the Big Endian/Little Endian debate, and how one replacement of a 0 for a 1 can lead to a drastically different outcome in a final product. There seems to be some similarity here with the idea of different types of mutations in protein transcription and translation in our cells. Big picture, there are point mutations (in which a single nucleotide base is substituted with a different nucleotide base; sometimes leading to a dramatically different protein outcome, other times not affecting the protein outcome) and frame shift mutations (in which a nucleotide base is either inserted or deleted; causing a full shift downstream in the codons being read and usually dramatically altering the protein that is formed.) Perhaps there is a parallel here with 1’s and 0’s being inverted (or added/subtracted) and leading to an alteration in a computing outcome or not altering it at all.

Mutations often get a bad rap – and it’s true that nucleotide mutations can lead to a certain protein not functioning properly, causing problems on a larger level within an organism. However, mutations are also essential for advancements in our genome. The mutations that cause us to have a competitive evolutionary advantage may stick around in our genomes, getting passed down from generation to generation and becoming more widespread in a population. I’m curious whether a “happy accident” ever occurs in coding. Has a coding “switch up” ever resulted in an unexpectedly positive outcome or breakthrough?

One additional comment, about the FINGER command. My high school used an email system that allowed senders and receivers to see when a recipient had both read and started to reply to a message. This was helpful at times and also difficult – especially if someone you wanted a response from wasn’t replying even after reading a note. A similar dilemma occurs with “read receipts” on text messages; seeing at exactly what time your friend opens a Snapchat; or knowing whether or not someone has read your message on Facebook – and whether or not they’ve been active on the site recently, down to the minute they last logged on. Email (at least amongst my friends) seems in its medium to dictate that a less instantaneous response might be more acceptable, whereas social media brings up all sorts of questions about expectations regarding response times and the ability to know how others interact with your messages/notes. I’m not sure where our privacy discussion will take us but perhaps we’ll discuss this further at a later point in the semester.

Until next week,

Samuel

Hi. Hello. Week 1. Here we go.

Two ideas jumped out at me during this week’s readings and discussion: the computer/IMP network as a living entity as well as the management styles that allowed for the success of the internet.

I found Baran’s idea for a Distributed network of nodes particularly interesting. The parallels between his Distributed network and the connections of neurons in a human brain are striking. I feel as if I take for granted the apparent seamlessness of the modern internet; it’s fascinating that even the original bulky network of machines mirrored something as natural and organic as our brain. Licklider’s thoughts about human-machine symbiosis also seem to portray the computer as a living entity — and his comment predicting our reliance on machines holds very true, considering how much we depend on both computers and the internet today.

Also, the styles of management seen throughout the first few chapters of the text were notable. Often, a “hands-off” leadership style led to the creation of the best products from a team. Roberts deserves credit for recognizing the importance of keeping watch over his project from afar and offering concise criticism, but also letting the scientists work and create. Thinking not just about the creation of the internet but about photography, creativity, and art in general – perhaps the best work environment for creation is one in which hands-off leadership is used. It’s possible to consider an alternate course of history where an overly nit-picky manager for any one of the sub-projects mentioned in the text could have created a work environment not conducive to creation.

One question I have from this week, about the telephone lines used to connect the various IMPs in the network: how is sound translated into something that is “read” by a computer? Conversely, how does a computer take its information and turn that into something that can be passed through a telephone line?