The Next 5000 Days of the Web

At the conclusion of his Frontline documentary Digital Nation, Douglas Rushkoff remarks that he loves technology, "but most of all [he] loves being able to turn it off." Frankly, that is my favorite part too. I love my laptop and I love my iPhone. Having access to the entirety of the web at any given time is fantastic and I am even willing to accept that, when I choose to access the web, Google, and practically every other site, will be watching. I understand that the openness of the web is built on this economy: "free" services are exchanged for data. This system, though not ideal, is acceptable.

Unfortunately. my tolerance for the Internet peepshow has a limit.

Having a smartphone with GPS locating services teaters on the brink of unacceptable but I am willing to compromise in return for the services I receive through my phone. Kevin Kelly's concept of the browser functioning as a portal to the vast singular entity, which is the Internet, is quite interesting and perhaps quite accurate as well. But what happens when the web begins extending its tentacles beyond the browser?

Believe it or not that time has already come. A French company, called Withings, recently release a bathroom scale, which can connect to a wireless network to share weight and fat information on the internet. It can even post the information as a tweet for all of your friends to read! Now people won't even have to look at a picture to see how overweight I am... thank god. Next there will be a bed that provides targeted ads either for condoms, based on how often it entertains visitors, or substitutes for visitors, if there is a noticeable lack of company; of course, it would also post all new developments directly to Twitter.

All sarcasm aside, as the web begins to permeate browser-less devices we are no longer peering through a oneway portal; the machine is looking right back. Kelly suggests that McLuhan had it backwards when he proposed that media is a sensory extension of human beings; instead, perhaps human beings are becoming merely an extension of the machine. It's becoming hard to escape it and harder to turn it off. The most unnerving part is Kelly's blissful smile as he ponders the possibility that every human being on the planet is like a moth flocking to the big, shiny Internet lightbulb. I love the near limitless possibilities of the web but I would sooner boycott the Internet entirely than let them take away the power button.

The Future of the Web

The future of the web is uncertain to say the least. New technologies spring up every day that change the way we interact with the web. I think the web will move in a similar direction to what was described in the article on web 3.0. The web is going to become smarter. Using a search engine involves the user sifting through a pages of search results. The new web will do this for the user by getting to know their personal tastes and making smarter more relavent suggestions. Technology that strives towards this goal is being released even now. Recently an iPhone application called Siri was released. The user speaks a request to the application, for example "I want pizza." Siri processes the request and returns a list of pizza places in the users general area with information on each restaurant, ratings, and menus. Users can refine the search simply by speaking another request which Siri takes in context of the current search. This is just the beginning of the app's potential and big companies have taken notice. Siri was just purchased by Apple which shows that the major players are beginning to look into such technology.

Illustrator Midterm

My illustration represents how large companies will edit their own Wikipedia pages and the pages for their products to cast them in the best possible light. In this sense, Wikipedia is under the control of these large corporations. It's just one more reason not to trust everything on Wikipedia.

Midterm Proposal

In the paper portion of my midterm I talked about how companies will edit the wikipedia pages for their company and products so that they are presented in the best possible light. I would like to do some kind of illustrated parodie depicting wikipedia being controlled by large corporations.

Media Transparency

In recent years, the technology behind the content available on the World Wide Web has greatly progressed. As a result of the advancement in the technology behind the Internet, the complexity and depth of the content accessible to users has skyrocketed. Web content has become an immersive, interactive, social experience; however, it remains as easy as ever for a web publisher to conceal or misrepresent his or her true identity from the average web user. Users have a right to understand the true

motives of the internet content they consume, especially in the form of social media, and companies and web publishers have a responsibility to maintain a degree

of transparency in their media.

Before considering the issue of transparency in media, it is important to understand the setting of this new frontier: Social Media. In social media the end user is deeply involved in the content and more often than not, the end user is the creator of the content. Users also interact with one another through the content they create and post in an online social setting. Nearly every high traffic, big time web site incorporates some form of social experience into its user interface. Obviously social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook epitomize social media; however, many other sites incorporate various aspects of the social networking model into their design. For example, on YouTube users respond to others’ videos through text comments, ratings, or video responses of their own. On Apple’s online store, buyers may leave feedback and ratings concerning products featured on the store. On Amazon.com buyers rate sellers according to the quality of the service received. Most blogs offer readers the ability to comment on and discuss blog articles with other readers. The list goes on.

So what is media transparency? According to a blog post by Brian Carter, “Transparency… when used in a social context, implies openness, communication, and accountability... Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.” Ironically enough Brian’s definition of transparency comes from Wikipedia, which is at the center of the media transparency debate. In any case when applied to a social media perspective, this would mean that, for example, a blogger who is paid by a company to review one of their products should acknowledge this fact on their blog post.

Generally speaking, the importance of transparency in media is widely accepted. According to Michael Brito, we practice transparency almost universally in our offline lives. Peopl

e don’t lie because “nine times out of ten people get caught.” Why should lying online be viewed any differently than lying in person? When the question regarding the ethical responsibility concerning social media arises, it is often concerned with large corporations using questionably deceptive tactics to promote their brand or product.

Astroturfing is one of the most popular tactics being used by companies and political candidates to attract customers and voters respectively. Astroturfing is when the candidate or company secretly creates what seems on the surface to be a grassroots movement or production to attempt to gain the attention and support of the public. For example in 2006 following the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, a spoof

was released on YouTube called “Al Gore’s Penguin Army” ridiculing Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. It was later reported the the spoof, which on the surface seemed to be unprofessionally produced, was in fact created by the DCI Group. According to the Washington Times article, the DCI Group is a “District-based ad agency that works for Mobil Exxon Corp.” Clearly, environmental reforms are not in the best interests of the Mobil Exxon Corporation. The production and distribution of this spoof on YouTube was underhanded and lacked any sort of transparency and in the end was widely criticized by the media.

Wikipedia is another front for corporate misinformation. Wikipedia allows users to collaborate and edit wikipedia articles anonymously. There is no background check to verify a user’s credibility so literally anyone with a computer can change Wikipedia articles. As a result, it is not inconceivable to imagine a represe

ntative for a company changing said company’s wikipedia article to shed the most positive light on the company’s image. There have been accusations of this nature against many different corporations but until several years ago there was no hard evidence to prove the theory.

In a 2007 article on Wired.com, John Borland reported on the activities of Cal Tech student

Virgil Griffith. Griffith designed a search tool, which tracks the origin of IP addresses of

wikipedia editors. The tool, dubbed Wikipedia Scanner, makes use of the detail edit logs kept by Wikipedia. A Wikipedia Scanner search for technology behemoth Microsoft reveals

thousands of edits made from IP addresses which

trace back to the Microsoft Corporation. For fairness’s sake, Microsoft competitor Apple has edits numbering in the hundreds. The point being, the average wikipedia user has no way of knowing whether or not Microsoft or Apple or any other company has been tweaking its own articles in order to sway public opinion of the company and brand.

Independent bloggers also face issues regarding transparency. Questions arise regarding the ethics of receiving monetary payment, free products, or services from companies in exchange for featured blog posts. How much of the details of these transactions should bloggers be required to publicize?

Blogger Chris Brogan accepted an offer from K-Mart to receive a $500 K-Mart gift card with which he could purchase five-hundred dollars in merchandise. Following the shopping trip, Chris would write a blog post about his shopping experience at K-Mart. In his blog post Mr. Brogan was as transparent as possible; he acknowledged that K-Mart was sponsoring his trip, that he received the $500 gift card, that some of the merchandise was for his family while some was donated to charity. In spite of his transparency, many people were outraged that he accepted the offer, and as one commenter put it, he was “pimping [him]self out.” As Scott Henderson writes, Brogan’s readers were responding to what this K-Mart deal meant for his future reputation. Could his readers still trust his blog as a reliable, unbiased source of information?

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has become involved in the issue of disclosure on the web. Last year the FTC updated its guidelines regarding its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which “address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers.”


The guidelines have been adjusted to take into account the relatively new realm of social media. According to the new rules “the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.” Though the government is beginning to get involved with trade online, it still remains a relatively unregulated area.

The truth is a commodity valued almost universally throughout society. In our daily lives there are consequences for lying. As previously mentioned, Michael Brito said, there is no reason the same rules governing truth should not be applied to our online lives and dealings as well. Companies gain and retain customers through quality of product and trustworthiness, not through underhanded manipulation. Perhaps those tactics gain customers in the short run; however, once the strategy is made public, it may very well have the opposite effect.

Transparency in Social Media is undeniably important. The biggest problem with transparency online is that the Internet makes it incredibly easy for people to hide the identity or motives, at least from the average user. The Internet is a source of information and, like any other publication, it would be of no use if the information was unreliable or inaccurate. Unfortunately there is still a lot of grey area with regard to exactly how much transparency is necessary. These answers will come in time as the possibilities of social media are more fully explored and regulated. Bloggers will have to consider what effect paid assignments will have on their reputations within the online community. As it stands to a certain extent success in the world of Social Media is based on reputation. For example, on Amazon if a seller has a poor rating it is less likely that someone will buy from him or her. Until a clear system is developed it will remain the responsibility of the end user to determine the transparency and reliability of online media.